I would like to ask you on your opinion about the correct architecture when to use Task.Run
. I am experiencing laggy UI in our WPF .NET 4.5 application (with Caliburn Micro framework).
Basically I am doing (very simplified code snippets):
public class PageViewModel : IHandle<SomeMessage>
{
...
public async void Handle(SomeMessage message)
{
ShowLoadingAnimation();
// Makes UI very laggy, but still not dead
await this.contentLoader.LoadContentAsync();
HideLoadingAnimation();
}
}
public class ContentLoader
{
public async Task LoadContentAsync()
{
await DoCpuBoundWorkAsync();
await DoIoBoundWorkAsync();
await DoCpuBoundWorkAsync();
// I am not really sure what all I can consider as CPU bound as slowing down the UI
await DoSomeOtherWorkAsync();
}
}
From the articles/videos I read/saw, I know that await
async
is not necessarily running on a background thread and to start work in the background you need to wrap it with await Task.Run(async () => ... )
. Using async
await
does not block the UI, but still it is running on the UI thread, so it is making it laggy.
Where is the best place to put Task.Run?
Should I just
Wrap the outer call because this is less threading work for .NET , or should I wrap only CPU-bound methods internally running with Task.Run as this makes it reusable for other places? I am not sure here if starting work on background threads deep in core is a good idea.
Ad (1), the first solution would be like this:
public async void Handle(SomeMessage message)
{
ShowLoadingAnimation();
await Task.Run(async () => await this.contentLoader.LoadContentAsync());
HideLoadingAnimation();
}
// Other methods do not use Task.Run as everything regardless
// if I/O or CPU bound would now run in the background.
Ad (2), the second solution would be like this:
public async Task DoCpuBoundWorkAsync()
{
await Task.Run(() => {
// Do lot of work here
});
}
public async Task DoSomeOtherWorkAsync(
{
// I am not sure how to handle this methods -
// probably need to test one by one, if it is slowing down UI
}
await Task.Run(async () => await this.contentLoader.LoadContentAsync());
should simply be await Task.Run( () => this.contentLoader.LoadContentAsync() );
. AFAIK you don't gain anything by adding a second await
and async
inside Task.Run
. And since you aren't passing parameters, that simplifies slightly more to await Task.Run( this.contentLoader.LoadContentAsync );
.
await Task.Run(() => { RunAnySynchronousMethod(); return Task.CompletedTask; });
inside your async method (e.g. async controller method, test method etc).
Note the guidelines for performing work on a UI thread, collected on my blog:
Don't block the UI thread for more than 50ms at a time.
You can schedule ~100 continuations on the UI thread per second; 1000 is too much.
There are two techniques you should use:
1) Use ConfigureAwait(false)
when you can.
E.g., await MyAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
instead of await MyAsync();
.
ConfigureAwait(false)
tells the await
that you do not need to resume on the current context (in this case, "on the current context" means "on the UI thread"). However, for the rest of that async
method (after the ConfigureAwait
), you cannot do anything that assumes you're in the current context (e.g., update UI elements).
For more information, see my MSDN article Best Practices in Asynchronous Programming.
2) Use Task.Run
to call CPU-bound methods.
You should use Task.Run
, but not within any code you want to be reusable (i.e., library code). So you use Task.Run
to call the method, not as part of the implementation of the method.
So purely CPU-bound work would look like this:
// Documentation: This method is CPU-bound.
void DoWork();
Which you would call using Task.Run
:
await Task.Run(() => DoWork());
Methods that are a mixture of CPU-bound and I/O-bound should have an Async
signature with documentation pointing out their CPU-bound nature:
// Documentation: This method is CPU-bound.
Task DoWorkAsync();
Which you would also call using Task.Run
(since it is partially CPU-bound):
await Task.Run(() => DoWorkAsync());
One issue with your ContentLoader is that internally it operates sequentially. A better pattern is to parallelize the work and then sychronize at the end, so we get
public class PageViewModel : IHandle<SomeMessage>
{
...
public async void Handle(SomeMessage message)
{
ShowLoadingAnimation();
// makes UI very laggy, but still not dead
await this.contentLoader.LoadContentAsync();
HideLoadingAnimation();
}
}
public class ContentLoader
{
public async Task LoadContentAsync()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
tasks.Add(DoCpuBoundWorkAsync());
tasks.Add(DoIoBoundWorkAsync());
tasks.Add(DoCpuBoundWorkAsync());
tasks.Add(DoSomeOtherWorkAsync());
await Task.WhenAll(tasks).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Obviously, this doesn't work if any of the tasks require data from other earlier tasks, but should give you better overall throughput for most scenarios.
Success story sharing
ConfigureAwait(false)
. If you do that first, then you may find thatTask.Run
is completely unnecessary. If you do still needTask.Run
, then it doesn't make much difference to the runtime in this case whether you call it once or many times, so just do what's most natural for your code.ConfigureAwait(false)
on your cpu-bound method, it's still the UI thread that's going to do the cpu-bound method, and only everything after might be done on a TP thread. Or did I misunderstand something?Task.Run
understands asynchronous signatures, so it won't complete untilDoWorkAsync
is complete. The extraasync
/await
is unnecessary. I explain more of the "why" in my blog series onTask.Run
etiquette.TaskCompletionSource<T>
or one of its shorthand notations such asFromAsync
. I have a blog post that goes into more detail why async methods don't require threads.