If I have a coroutine currently sleeping to allow other coroutines to run, is is possible to change the sleep time while sleeping? Or would I have to cancel and restart the coroutine. I think I may have just answered myself there. Looking for help from the more experienced.
The "sleep" coroutine is obviously designed to be simple: it pauses for that amount of time, and it is it.
What you seem to need is a way to synchronize your co-routines, and if no signal gets back in an specified amount of time (the time you are passing to sleep), to move on.
Take a look at the synchronization primitives https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/asyncio-sync.html and asyncio.wait_for
So, you can instead of asyncio.sleep, call a co-routine, with wait_for, where it expects an Event, or a Lock release. The Event or lock-release then is used by whatever part of your code would "cancel sleep" anyway.
I created an example to show both sleeping running to the end, and being canceled.
import asyncio
async def interruptable_sleep(time, event):
try:
await asyncio.wait_for(event.wait(), timeout=time)
except asyncio.TimeoutError:
print("'sleeping' proceeded normaly")
else:
print("'sleeping' canceled")
async def sleeper(m, n, event):
await asyncio.sleep(n)
if n == 3:
event.set()
print(f"cycle {m}, step {n}")
async def main():
event = asyncio.Event()
tasks = []
for cycle in range(3):
event.clear()
# create batch of async tasks to run in parallel
for step in range(6):
tasks.append(asyncio.create_task(sleeper(cycle, step, event), name=f"{cycle}_{step}"))
await interruptable_sleep(2, event)
# 'join' remaining tasks
event.set()
await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
asyncio.run(main())
This pattern sort of "reverses" the idea of a timeout: if a task finishes early, the waiting is canceled . (while timeout means "if a task is too late, cancel it") -
But maybe ou just need the other pattern there: to create a list of all your tasks and call asyncio.gather, rather than calling "sleep" to give "time for the other tasks to run".
Related
I'm trying to understand how does asyncio.create_task actually work. Suppose I have following code:
import asyncio
import time
async def delayer():
await asyncio.sleep(1)
async def messenger():
await asyncio.sleep(1)
return "A Message"
async def main():
message = await messenger()
await delayer()
start_time = time.time()
asyncio.run(main())
end_time = time.time() - start_time
print(end_time)
The code will take about 2 seconds. But if I make some changes to the body of main like this:
import asyncio
import time
async def delayer():
await asyncio.sleep(1)
async def messenger():
await asyncio.sleep(1)
return "A Message"
async def main():
task1 = asyncio.create_task(delayer())
task2 = asyncio.create_task(delayer())
await task1
await task2
start_time = time.time()
asyncio.run(main())
end_time = time.time() - start_time
print(end_time)
Now the code will take about 1 second.
My understanding from what I read is that await is a blocking process as we can see from the first code. In that code we need to wait 1 second for the messenger function to return, then another second for delayer function.
Now the real question come from the second code. We just learnt that await need us to wait for its expression to return. So even if we use async.create_task, shouldn't awaits in one of the function's body block the process and then return whenever it finishes its job, thus should give us 2 seconds for the program to end?
If that wasn't the case, can you help me understand the asyncio.create_task?
What I know:
await is a blocking process
await executes coroutine function and task object
await makes us possible to pause coroutine process (I don't quite understand about this, too)
create_task creates task object and then schedule and execute it as soon as possible
What I am expecting:
I hope I can get a simple but effective answer about how does asyncio.create_task conduct its work using my sample code.
Perhaps it will help to think in the following way.
You cannot understand what await does until you understand what an event loop is. This line:
asyncio.run(main())
creates and executes an event loop, which is basically an infinite loop with some methods for allowing an exit - a "semi-infinite" loop, so to speak. Until that loop exits, it will be entirely responsible for executing the program. (Here I am assuming that your program has only a single thread and a single Process. I'm not talking about concurrent program in any form.) Each unit of code that can run within an event loop is called a "Task." The idea of the loop is that it can run multiple Tasks by switching from one to another, thus giving the illusion that the CPU is doing more than one thing at a time.
The asyncio.run() call does a second thing: it creates a Task, main(). At that moment, it's the only Task. The event loop begins to run the Task at its first line. Initially it runs just like any other function:
async def main():
task1 = asyncio.create_task(delayer())
task2 = asyncio.create_task(delayer())
await task1
await task2
It creates two more tasks, task1 and task2. Now there are 3 Tasks but only one of them can be active. That's still main(). Then you come to this line:
await task1
The await keyword is what allows this whole rigmarole to work. It is an instruction to the event loop to suspend the active task right here, at this point, and possibly allow another Task to become the active one. So to address your first bullet point, await is neither "blocking" nor is it a "process". Its purpose is to mark a point at which the event loop gets control back from the active Task.
There is another thing happening here. The object that follows the await is called, unimaginatively, an "awaitable" object. Its crucial property is whether or not it is "done." The event loop keeps track of this object; as the loop cycles through its Tasks it will keep checking this object. If it's not done, main() doesn't resume. (This isn't exactly how it's implemented because that would be inefficient, but it's conceptually what's happening.) If you want to say that the await is "blocking" main() until task1 is finished, that's sort-of true; but "blocking" has a technical meaning so it's not the best word to use. In any case, the event loop is not "blocked" at all - it can keep running other Tasks until the awaitable task1 is done. After task1 becomes "done" and main() gets its turn to be the active task, execution continues to the next line of code.
Your second bullet point, "await executes coroutine function and task object" is not correct. await doesn't execute anything. As I said, it just marks a point where the Task gets suspended and the event loop gets control back. Its awaitable determines when the Task can be resumed.
You say, "await makes [it] possible to pause coroutine process". Not quite right - it ALWAYS suspends the current Task. Whether or not there is a significant delay in the Task's execution depends on whether there are other Tasks that are ready to take over, and also the state of its awaitable.
"create_task creates task object and then schedule and execute it as soon as possible." Correct. But "as soon as possible" means the next time the current Task hits an await expression. Other Tasks may get a turn to run first, before the new Task gets a chance to start. Those details are up to the implementation of the event loop. But eventually the new Task will get a turn.
In the comments you ask, "Is it safe if I say that plain await, not being involved in any event loop or any kind of it, works in blocking manner?" It's absolutely not safe to say that. First of all, there is no such thing as a "plain await". Your task must wait FOR something, otherwise how would the event loop know when to resume? An await without an event loop is either a syntax error or a runtime error - it makes no sense, because await is a point where the Task and the event loop interact. The main point is that event loops and await expression are intimately related: an await without an event loop is an error; an event loop without any await expressions is useless.
The closest you can come to a plain await is this expression:
await asyncio.sleep(0)
which has the effect of suspending the current Task momentarily, giving the event loop a chance to run other tasks, resuming this Task as soon as possible.
One other point is that the code:
await task1
is an expression which has a value, in this case the returned value from task1. Since your task1 doesn't return anything this will be None. But if your delayer function looked like this:
async def delayer():
await asyncio.sleep(1)
return "Hello"
then in main() you could write:
print(await task1)
and you would see "Hello" on the console.
I'm trying to understand how asyncio works. As for I/O operation i got understand that when await was called, we register Future object in EventLoop, and then calling epoll for get sockets which belongs to Future objects, that ready for give us data. After we run registred callback and resume function execution.
But, the thing that i cant understant, what's happening if we use await not for I/O operation. How eventloop understands that task is complete? Is it create socket for that or use another kind of loop? Is it use epoll? Or doesnt it add to Loop and used it as generator?
There is an example:
import asyncio
async def test():
return 10
async def my_coro(delay):
loop = asyncio.get_running_loop()
end_time = loop.time() + delay
while True:
print("Blocking...")
await test()
if loop.time() > end_time:
print("Done.")
break
async def main():
await my_coro(3.0)
asyncio.run(main())
await doesn't automatically yield to the event loop, that happens only when an async function (anywhere in the chain of awaits) requests suspension, typically due to IO or timeout not being ready.
In your example the event loop is never returned to, which you can easily verify by moving the "Blocking" print before the while loop and changing main to await asyncio.gather(my_coro(3.0), my_coro(3.0)). What you'll observe is that the coroutines are executed in series ("blocking" followed by "done", all repeated twice), not in parallel ("blocking" followed by another "blocking" and then twice "done"). The reason for that was that there was simply no opportunity for a context switch - my_coro executed in one go as if they were an ordinary function because none of its awaits ever chose to suspend.
Is a coroutine waiting for an asyncio.Event to be set guaranteed to be notified every time the event is set?
Neither Event.set() nor Event.clear() are awaitables. Thus an Event can be set and cleared without control being returned to the loop. Thus I guess calling set() and clear() will not notify the waiters on the event. The only way I found to make sure the waiters are notified is by adding an asycnio.sleep(0) to force back the control to the loop inbetween the set() and the clear(). But this looks rather ugly to me.
Here is an example:
NUM_EVENTS = 1000
NUM_WAITERS = 1000
import asyncio
async def waiter(event, id):
print('waiting for it ...')
for i in range(NUM_EVENTS):
await event.wait()
await asyncio.sleep(0) # might be dropped by affects order
print(f'... {id} got {i}')
async def main():
# Create an Event object.
event = asyncio.Event()
# Spawn a Task to wait until 'event' is set.
waiter_tasks = []
for i in range(NUM_WAITERS):
waiter_tasks.append(asyncio.create_task(waiter(event, i)))
# Sleep for 1 second and set the event.
await asyncio.sleep(1)
for i in range(NUM_EVENTS):
event.set()
await asyncio.sleep(0) # leaving this out will result in the waiters only receiving the event once
event.clear()
# Wait until the waiter task is finished.
await asyncio.wait(waiter_tasks)
if __name__ == '__main__':
asyncio.run(main())
Leaving out the asyncio.sleep(0) on line 31 will make the waiters receiving the event only once (instead of 1000) times.
But how to do this cleanly?
Is a coroutine waiting for an asyncio.Event to be set guaranteed to be notified every time the event is set?
A waiter is only guaranteed to notice that a set() occurred while it was waiting, even if it was immediately followed by clear(). There is no guarantee that it will be woken up as many time as the state was changed from false to true.
This stronger guarantee would require an additional counter on the object, which would no longer be a simple boolean "event". It would also be incompatible with threading.Event, which doesn't provide it.
But how to do this cleanly?
The clean way would be for the Event to only mark that "something" has happened, and that the metainformation what has happened (which includes the counter, if needed) is stored alongside. That way the event object does a single purpose: signaling to the waiters that the event they've been waiting for has transpired, and they can loop the requisite number of times themselves.
If the waiters need to react to set() immediately, then awaiting asyncio.sleep(0) is the way to go about it, but in asyncio that's somewhat of a design smell. It's hard to tell how to fix it without knowing more about your code, though.
Is it possible to share an asyncio.Queue over different tasks in one event loop?
The usecase:
Two tasks are publishing data on a queue, and one task is grabbing the new items from the Queue. All tasks in an asynchronous way.
main.py
import asyncio
import creator
async def pull_message(queue):
while True:
# Here I dont get messages, maybe the queue is always
# occupied by a other task?
msg = await queue.get()
print(msg)
if __name__ == "__main__"
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
queue = asyncio.Queue(loop=loop)
future = asyncio.ensure_future(pull_message(queue))
creators = list()
for i in range(2):
creators.append(loop.create_task(cr.populate_msg(queue)))
# add future to creators for easy handling
creators.append(future)
loop.run_until_complete(asyncio.gather(*creators))
creator.py
import asyncio
async def populate_msg(queue):
while True:
msg = "Foo"
await queue.put(msg)
The problem in your code is that populate_msg doesn't yield to the event loop because the queue is unbounded. This is somewhat counter-intuitive because the coroutine clearly contains an await, but that await only suspends the execution of the coroutine if the coroutine would otherwise block. Since put() on an unbounded queue never blocks, populate_msg is the only thing executed by the event loop.
The problem will go away once you change populate_msg to actually do something else (like await a network event). For testing purposes you can add await asyncio.sleep(0) inside the loop, which will force the coroutine to yield control to the event loop at every iteration of the while loop. Note that this will cause the event loop to spend an entire core by continuously spinning the loop.
Suppose I have some tasks running asynchronously. They may be totally independent, but I still want to set points where the tasks will pause so they can run concurrently.
What is the correct way to run the tasks concurrently? I am currently using await asyncio.sleep(0), but I feel this is adding a lot of overhead.
import asyncio
async def do(name, amount):
for i in range(amount):
# Do some time-expensive work
print(f'{name}: has done {i}')
await asyncio.sleep(0)
return f'{name}: done'
async def main():
res = await asyncio.gather(do('Task1', 3), do('Task2', 2))
print(*res, sep='\n')
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.run_until_complete(main())
Output
Task1: has done 0
Task2: has done 0
Task1: has done 1
Task2: has done 1
Task1: has done 2
Task1: done
Task2: done
If we were using simple generators, an empty yield would pause the flow of a task without any overhead, but empty await are not valid.
What is the correct way to set such breakpoints without overhead?
As mentioned in the comments, normally asyncio coroutines suspend automatically on calls that would block or sleep in equivalent synchronous code. In your case the coroutine is CPU-bound, so awaiting blocking calls is not enough, it needs to occasionally relinquish control to the event loop to allow the rest of the system to run.
Explicit yields are not uncommon in cooperative multitasking, and using await asyncio.sleep(0) for that purpose will work as intended, it does carry a risk: sleep too often, and you're slowing down the computation by unnecessary switches; sleep too seldom, and you're hogging the event loop by spending too much time in a single coroutine.
The solution provided by asyncio is to offload CPU-bound code to a thread pool using run_in_executor. Awaiting it will automatically suspend the coroutine until the CPU-intensive task is done, without any intermediate polling. For example:
import asyncio
def do(id, amount):
for i in range(amount):
# Do some time-expensive work
print(f'{id}: has done {i}')
return f'{id}: done'
async def main():
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
res = await asyncio.gather(
loop.run_in_executor(None, do, 'Task1', 5),
loop.run_in_executor(None, do, 'Task2', 3))
print(*res, sep='\n')
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.run_until_complete(main())