ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Why should I prefer single 'await Task.WhenAll' over multiple awaits?

In case I do not care about the order of task completion and just need them all to complete, should I still use await Task.WhenAll instead of multiple await? e.g, is DoWork2 below a preferred method to DoWork1 (and why?):

using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

namespace ConsoleApp
{
    class Program
    {
        static async Task<string> DoTaskAsync(string name, int timeout)
        {
            var start = DateTime.Now;
            Console.WriteLine("Enter {0}, {1}", name, timeout);
            await Task.Delay(timeout);
            Console.WriteLine("Exit {0}, {1}", name, (DateTime.Now - start).TotalMilliseconds);
            return name;
        }

        static async Task DoWork1()
        {
            var t1 = DoTaskAsync("t1.1", 3000);
            var t2 = DoTaskAsync("t1.2", 2000);
            var t3 = DoTaskAsync("t1.3", 1000);

            await t1; await t2; await t3;

            Console.WriteLine("DoWork1 results: {0}", String.Join(", ", t1.Result, t2.Result, t3.Result));
        }

        static async Task DoWork2()
        {
            var t1 = DoTaskAsync("t2.1", 3000);
            var t2 = DoTaskAsync("t2.2", 2000);
            var t3 = DoTaskAsync("t2.3", 1000);

            await Task.WhenAll(t1, t2, t3);

            Console.WriteLine("DoWork2 results: {0}", String.Join(", ", t1.Result, t2.Result, t3.Result));
        }


        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            Task.WhenAll(DoWork1(), DoWork2()).Wait();
        }
    }
}
What if you don't actually know how many tasks you need to do in parallel? What if you have 1000 tasks need to be run? The first one will be not much readable await t1; await t2; ....; await tn => the second one is always the best choice in both case
Your comment makes sense. I was just trying to clarify something for myself, related to another question I recently answered. In that case, there were 3 tasks.

u
usr

Yes, use WhenAll because it propagates all errors at once. With the multiple awaits, you lose errors if one of the earlier awaits throws.

Another important difference is that WhenAll will wait for all tasks to complete even in the presence of failures (faulted or canceled tasks). Awaiting manually in sequence would cause unexpected concurrency because the part of your program that wants to wait will actually continue early.

I think it also makes reading the code easier because the semantics that you want are directly documented in code.


“because it propagates all errors at once” Not if you await its result.
As for the question of how exceptions are managed with Task, this article gives a quick but good insight to the reasoning behind it (and it just so happens to also make a passing note of the benefits of WhenAll in contrast to multiple awaits): blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2011/09/28/10217876.aspx
@OskarLindberg the OP is starting all tasks before he is awaiting the first one. So they run concurrently. Thanks for the link.
@usr I was curious still to know if WhenAll doesn't do clever things like conserving the same SynchronizationContext, to further push its benefits aside from the semantics. I found no conclusive documentation, but looking at the IL there are evidently different implementations of IAsyncStateMachine in play. I don't read IL all that well, but WhenAll at the very least appears to generate more efficient IL code. (In any case, the fact alone that the result of WhenAll reflects the state of all tasks involved to me is reason enough to prefer it in most cases.)
Another important difference is that WhenAll will wait for all tasks to complete, even if, e.g., t1 or t2 throws an exception or are canceled.
M
Marcel Popescu

My understanding is that the main reason to prefer Task.WhenAll to multiple awaits is performance / task "churning": the DoWork1 method does something like this:

start with a given context

save the context

wait for t1

restore the original context

save the context

wait for t2

restore the original context

save the context

wait for t3

restore the original context

By contrast, DoWork2 does this:

start with a given context

save the context

wait for all of t1, t2 and t3

restore the original context

Whether this is a big enough deal for your particular case is, of course, "context-dependent" (pardon the pun).


You seem to think that sending a message tot he synchronization context is expensive. It's really not. You have a delegate that gets added to a queue, that queue will be read and the delegate executed. The overhead that this adds is honestly very small. It's not nothing, but it's not big either. The expense of whatever the async operations are will dwarf such overhead in almost all instances.
Agreed, it was just the only reason I could think of to prefer one over the other. Well, that plus the similarity with Task.WaitAll where thread switching is a more significant cost.
@Servy As Marcel points out that REALLY depends. If you use await on all db tasks as a matter of principle for example, and that db sits on the same machine as the asp.net instance, there are cases you'll await a db hit that's in-memory in-index, cheaper than that synchronization switch and threadpool shuffle. There could be a significant overall win with WhenAll() in that kind of scenario, so... it really depends.
@ChrisMoschini There is no way that the DB query, even if it's hitting a DB sitting on the same machine as the server, is going to be faster than the overhead of adding a few delegates to a message pump. That in-memory query is still almost certainly going to be quite a lot slower.
Also note that if t1 is slower and t2 and t3 are faster - then the other awaits return immediately.
L
Lukazoid

An asynchronous method is implemented as a state-machine. It is possible to write methods so that they are not compiled into state-machines, this is often referred to as a fast-track async method. These can be implemented like so:

public Task DoSomethingAsync()
{
    return DoSomethingElseAsync();
}

When using Task.WhenAll it is possible to maintain this fast-track code while still ensuring the caller is able to wait for all tasks to be completed, e.g.:

public Task DoSomethingAsync()
{
    var t1 = DoTaskAsync("t2.1", 3000);
    var t2 = DoTaskAsync("t2.2", 2000);
    var t3 = DoTaskAsync("t2.3", 1000);

    return Task.WhenAll(t1, t2, t3);
}

M
Maverick Meerkat

(Disclaimer: This answer is taken/inspired from Ian Griffiths' TPL Async course on Pluralsight)

Another reason to prefer WhenAll is Exception handling.

Suppose you had a try-catch block on your DoWork methods, and suppose they were calling different DoTask methods:

static async Task DoWork1() // modified with try-catch
{
    try
    {
        var t1 = DoTask1Async("t1.1", 3000);
        var t2 = DoTask2Async("t1.2", 2000);
        var t3 = DoTask3Async("t1.3", 1000);

        await t1; await t2; await t3;

        Console.WriteLine("DoWork1 results: {0}", String.Join(", ", t1.Result, t2.Result, t3.Result));
    }
    catch (Exception x)
    {
        // ...
    }

}

In this case, if all 3 tasks throw exceptions, only the first one will be caught. Any later exception will be lost. I.e. if t2 and t3 throws exception, only t2 will be catched; etc. The subsequent tasks exceptions will go unobserved.

Where as in the WhenAll - if any or all of the tasks fault, the resulting task will contain all of the exceptions. The await keyword still always re-throws the first exception. So the other exceptions are still effectively unobserved. One way to overcome this is to add an empty continuation after the task WhenAll and put the await there. This way if the task fails, the result property will throw the full Aggregate Exception:

static async Task DoWork2() //modified to catch all exceptions
{
    try
    {
        var t1 = DoTask1Async("t1.1", 3000);
        var t2 = DoTask2Async("t1.2", 2000);
        var t3 = DoTask3Async("t1.3", 1000);

        var t = Task.WhenAll(t1, t2, t3);
        await t.ContinueWith(x => { });

        Console.WriteLine("DoWork1 results: {0}", String.Join(", ", t.Result[0], t.Result[1], t.Result[2]));
    }
    catch (Exception x)
    {
        // ...
    }
}

r
rarrarrarrr

The other answers to this question offer up technical reasons why await Task.WhenAll(t1, t2, t3); is preferred. This answer will aim to look at it from a softer side (which @usr alludes to) while still coming to the same conclusion.

await Task.WhenAll(t1, t2, t3); is a more functional approach, as it declares intent and is atomic.

With await t1; await t2; await t3;, there is nothing preventing a teammate (or maybe even your future self!) from adding code between the individual await statements. Sure, you've compressed it to one line to essentially accomplish that, but that doesn't solve the problem. Besides, it's generally bad form in a team setting to include multiple statements on a given line of code, as it can make the source file harder for human eyes to scan.

Simply put, await Task.WhenAll(t1, t2, t3); is more maintainable, as it communicates your intent more clearly and is less vulnerable to peculiar bugs that can come out of well-meaning updates to the code, or even just merges gone wrong.


S
Sohail Shaghasi

It is as simple as this.

If you have multiple http calls IEnumerable to either an external api or database, use WhenAll to execute requests parallelly instead of awaiting for a single call to complete then proceed with others.


The question is not about http at all
Hi, welcome to the site. This may be true if the OP had awaited taskA before calling taskB, but they first started all the tasks.