CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#parallel-processingtask-parallel-libraryparallel.foreach
Learn AspNet
Learn AspNet

Reputation: 1612

Understand parallel programming in C# with async examples

I am trying to understand parallel programming and I would like my async methods to run on multiple threads. I have written something but it does not work like I thought it should.

Code

public static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
    var listAfterParallel =  RunParallel(); // Running this function to return tasks
    await Task.WhenAll(listAfterParallel); // I want the program exceution to stop until all tasks are returned or tasks are completed
    Console.WriteLine("After Parallel Loop"); // But currently when I run program, after parallel loop command is printed first
    Console.ReadLine();
}

public static async Task<ConcurrentBag<string>> RunParallel()
{
     var client = new System.Net.Http.HttpClient();
     client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Add("Accept", "application/json");
     client.BaseAddress = new Uri("https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com");
     var list = new List<int>();
     var listResults = new ConcurrentBag<string>();
     for (int i = 1; i < 5; i++)
     {
       list.Add(i);
     }
     // Parallel for each branch to run await commands on multiple threads. 
     Parallel.ForEach(list, new ParallelOptions() { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 2 }, async (index) =>
     {
         var response = await client.GetAsync("posts/" + index);
         var contents = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
         listResults.Add(contents);
         Console.WriteLine(contents);
     });
     return listResults;
}

I would like RunParallel function to complete before "After parallel loop" is printed. Also I want my get posts method to run on multiple threads.

Any help would be appreciated!

Upvotes: 2

Views: 1555

Answers (2)

Theodor Zoulias
Theodor Zoulias

Reputation: 43545

Take a look at this: There Is No Thread

When you are making multiple concurrent web requests it's not your CPU that is doing the hard work. It's the CPU of the web server that is serving your requests. Your CPU is doing nothing during this time. It's not in a special "Wait-state" or something. The hardware inside your box that is working is your network card, that writes data to your RAM. When the response is received then your CPU will be notified about the arrived data, so it can do something with them.

You need parallelism when you have heavy work to do inside your box, not when you want the heavy work to be done by the external world. From the point of view of your CPU, even your hard disk is part of the external world. So everything that applies to web requests, applies also to requests targeting filesystems and databases. These workloads are called I/O bound, to be distinguished from the so called CPU bound workloads.

For I/O bound workloads the tool offered by the .NET platform is the asynchronous Task. There are multiple APIs throughout the libraries that return Task objects. To achieve concurrency you typically start multiple tasks and then await them with Task.WhenAll. There are also more advanced tools like the TPL Dataflow library, that is build on top of Tasks. It offers capabilities like buffering, batching, configuring the maximum degree of concurrency, and much more.

Upvotes: 1

David
David

Reputation: 10708

What's happening here is that you're never waiting for the Parallel.ForEach block to complete - you're just returning the bag that it will eventually pump into. The reason for this is that because Parallel.ForEach expects Action delegates, you've created a lambda which returns void rather than Task. While async void methods are valid, they generally continue their work on a new thread and return to the caller as soon as they await a Task, and the Parallel.ForEach method therefore thinks the handler is done, even though it's kicked that remaining work off into a separate thread.

Instead, use a synchronous method here;

Parallel.ForEach(list, new ParallelOptions() { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 2 }, index => 
{
    var response = client.GetAsync("posts/" + index).Result;

    var contents = response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result;
    listResults.Add(contents);
    Console.WriteLine(contents);
});

If you absolutely must use await inside, Wrap it in Task.Run(...).GetAwaiter().GetResult();

Parallel.ForEach(list, new ParallelOptions() { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 2 }, index => Task.Run(async () =>
{
    var response = await client.GetAsync("posts/" + index);

    var contents = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
    listResults.Add(contents);
    Console.WriteLine(contents);
}).GetAwaiter().GetResult();

In this case, however, Task.run generally goes to a new thread, so we've subverted most of the control of Parallel.ForEach; it's better to use async all the way down;

var tasks = list.Select(async (index) => {
        var response = await client.GetAsync("posts/" + index);

        var contents = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
        listResults.Add(contents);
        Console.WriteLine(contents);
    });
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);

Since Select expects a Func<T, TResult>, it will interpret an async lambda with no return as an async Task method instead of async void, and thus give us something we can explicitly await

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions