This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 23, 2023. It is now read-only.
Avoid delegate/work item allocations when setting async continuation #22373
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When awaiting a task, there's a race between seeing whether the task has completed (in which case we just continue running synchronously), finding the task hasn't completed (in which case we hook up a continuation), and then by the time we try to hook up the continuation finding the task has already completed. In that final case, we don't want to just execute the callback synchronously, as we risk a stack dive, so we queue it. That queueing currently entails two allocations in the common case: one for the work item object, and one for the Action delegate we force into existence for the state machine box's MoveNext method (in the common case it's now never allocated because you only await Tasks and ValueTasks known to the runtime, which bypasses its creation). We can instead just queue the box itself, and avoid both allocations.
davidfowl
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2019
benaadams
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2019
picenka21
pushed a commit
to picenka21/runtime
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2022
…otnet/coreclr#22373) When awaiting a task, there's a race between seeing whether the task has completed (in which case we just continue running synchronously), finding the task hasn't completed (in which case we hook up a continuation), and then by the time we try to hook up the continuation finding the task has already completed. In that final case, we don't want to just execute the callback synchronously, as we risk a stack dive, so we queue it. That queueing currently entails two allocations in the common case: one for the work item object, and one for the Action delegate we force into existence for the state machine box's MoveNext method (in the common case it's now never allocated because you only await Tasks and ValueTasks known to the runtime, which bypasses its creation). We can instead just queue the box itself, and avoid both allocations. Commit migrated from dotnet/coreclr@a98189a
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When awaiting a task, there's a race between seeing whether the task has completed (in which case we just continue running synchronously), finding the task hasn't completed (in which case we hook up a continuation), and then by the time we try to hook up the continuation finding the task has already completed. In that final case, we don't want to just execute the callback synchronously, as we risk a stack dive, so we queue it. That queueing currently entails two allocations in the common case: one for the work item object, and one for the Action delegate we force into existence for the state machine box's MoveNext method (in the common case it's now never allocated because you only await Tasks and ValueTasks known to the runtime, which bypasses its creation). We can instead just queue the box itself, and avoid both allocations.
cc: @kouvel, @tarekgh, @benaadams