async await performance?
(Just a theoretical question - for non-gui apps)
Assuming I have this code with many awaits
:
public async Task<T> ConsumeAsync()
{
await A();
await b();
await c();
await d();
//..
}
Where each task can take a very short period of time ,
Question (again , theoretical)
There could be a situation where the overall time dealing with all those "releasing back threads" and "fetching threads back" ( red & green here :)
Is taking more time than a single thread which could done all the work with a small amount of delay ,
I mean , I wanted to be the most productive , but instead , since all those switches back and forth - I actually lost productivity.
Can such scenario occur ?
Yes, in theory. Not normally, in the real world.
In the common case, async
is used for I/O-bound operations, and the overhead of thread management is undetectable in comparison to them. Most of the time, asynchronous operations either take a very long time (compared to thread management) or are already completed (e.g., a cache). Note that async
has a "fast path" that kicks in if the operation is already completed, where it does not yield the thread.
For more information, see the Zen of Async and Async Performance.
A Task
object represent the deferred result of a pending operation. You don't have to use tasks and async/await
if you don't have any pending operations. Otherwise, I believe async
/await
code is generally more efficient than its bare TPL ContinueWith
analogue.
Let's do some timing:
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication
{
class Program
{
// async/await version
static async Task<int> Test1Async(Task<int> task)
{
return await task;
}
// TPL version
static Task<int> Test2Async(Task<int> task)
{
return task.ContinueWith(
t => t.Result,
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously,
TaskScheduler.Default);
}
static void Tester(string name, Func<Task<int>, Task<int>> func)
{
var sw = new System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
{
func(Task.FromResult(0)).Wait();
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}ms", name, sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Tester("Test1Async", Test1Async);
Tester("Test2Async", Test2Async);
}
}
}
The output:
Test1Async: 1582ms Test2Async: 4975ms
So, by default, await
continuations are handled more efficiently than ContinueWith
continuations. Let's optimize this code slightly:
// async/await version
static async Task<int> Test1Async(Task<int> task)
{
if (task.IsCompleted)
return task.Result;
return await task;
}
// TPL version
static Task<int> Test2Async(Task<int> task)
{
if (task.IsCompleted)
return Task.FromResult(task.Result);
return task.ContinueWith(
t => t.Result,
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously,
TaskScheduler.Default);
}
The output:
Test1Async: 1557ms Test2Async: 429ms
Now the non-async version wins. In case with the async
version, I believe this optimization has already been done internally by the async/await
infrastructure.
Anyway, so far we've dealt only with completed tasks (Task.FromResult
). Let's introduce the actual asynchrony (naturally, we'll do less iterations this time):
static Task<int> DoAsync()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<int>();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(_ => tcs.SetResult(0));
return tcs.Task;
}
static void Tester(string name, Func<Task<int>, Task<int>> func)
{
ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(200, 200);
var sw = new System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
func(DoAsync()).Wait();
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}ms", name, sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
The output:
Test1Async: 4207ms Test2Async: 4734ms
Now the difference is very marginal, although the async
version still performs slightly better. Yet I think such gain is really neglectable, comparable to the actual cost of the asynchronous operation or to the cost of restoring the captured context for when SynchronizationContext.Current != null
.
The bottom line is, if you deal with asynchronous tasks, go for async
/await
if you have a choice, not for performance reason but for ease of use, readability and maintainability.