Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Propose new async API #110420

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+16 −28
Open

Propose new async API #110420

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
dbb4574
Propose new async API
agocke Dec 4, 2024
9757697
Change return type of AwaitAwaiter methods to void
agocke Dec 5, 2024
358aec6
Reword suspension
agocke Dec 5, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
44 changes: 16 additions & 28 deletions docs/design/specs/runtime-async.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ These are proposed modifications to the ECMA-335 specification for runtime-async

### I.8.4.5 Sync and Async Methods

Methods may be either 'sync' or 'async'. Async method definitions are methods attributed with `[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]`. Inside async method bodies, certain methods are also invokable by a special signature encoding, described in [### I.8.6.1.5 Method signatures].
Methods may be either 'sync' or 'async'. Async method definitions are methods attributed with `[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]`.

Applicability of `MethodImplOptions.Async`:
* The `[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]` only has effect when applied to method definitions that return generic or nongeneric variants of Task or ValueTask.
Expand All @@ -21,30 +21,39 @@ Applicability of `MethodImplOptions.Async`:
* Applying `MethodImplOptions.Async` to methods with `byref` or `ref-like` parameters is invalid.
* Applying `MethodImplOptions.Async` to vararg methods is invalid.

_[Note: these rules operate before generic substitution, meaning that a method which only meets requirements after substitution would not be considered as valid.]_

Sync methods are all other methods.

Unlike sync methods, async methods support suspension. Suspension allows async methods to yield control flow back to their caller at certain well-defined suspension points, and resume execution of the remaining method at a later time or location, potentially on another thread.

Async methods also do not have matching return type conventions as sync methods. For sync methods, the stack should contain a value convertible to the stated return type before the `ret` instruction. For async methods, the stack should be empty in the case of `Task` or `ValueTask`, or the type argument in the case of `Task<T>` or `ValueTask<T>`.

Async methods support the following suspension points:
Async methods support suspension using one of the following methods:

* Calling another method through the secondary encoding described in [### I.8.6.1.5 Method signatures]. No special instructions need to be provided. If the callee suspends, the caller will suspend as well.
* Using new .NET runtime APIs to "await" an "INotifyCompletion" type. The signatures of these methods shall be:
```C#
namespace System.Runtime.CompilerServices
{
public static class RuntimeHelpers
{
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]
public static Task AwaitAwaiterFromRuntimeAsync<TAwaiter>(TAwaiter awaiter) where TAwaiter : INotifyCompletion { ... }
public static void AwaitAwaiterFromRuntimeAsync<TAwaiter>(TAwaiter awaiter) where TAwaiter : INotifyCompletion { ... }
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]
public static void UnsafeAwaitAwaiterFromRuntimeAsync<TAwaiter>(TAwaiter awaiter) where TAwaiter : ICriticalNotifyCompletion
Copy link
Member

@VSadov VSadov Jan 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I assume the purpose of public AwaitAwaiterFromRuntimeAsync would be just for custom awaitables?

Previously, in async2 methods, Roslyn would generate a thunk call in cases when the await argument has Task/ValueTask type and is a method invocation.
Otherwise it would emit

                     {
                       var awaiter = arg.GetAwaiter();
                       if (awaiter.IsComplete())
                       {
                           UnsafeAwaitAwaiterFromRuntimeAsync(awaiter)
                       }
                       awaiter.GetResult()
                     }

Now awaiting anything that has Task type can be lowered into Await helper call.
I.E. await obj.taskField ==> Await(obj.taskField)


[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]
public static void Await(Task task);
Copy link
Contributor

@pentp pentp Jan 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One extremely common use case is await task.ConfigureAwait(false) - with the current set of methods this would need to use the more verbose (and presumably less efficient) methods above, but could consider adding overloads for these Await methods that take a ConfigureAwaitOptions parameter.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right, it was discussed a bit above. We definitely will need a way to handle these.

[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]
public static Task UnsafeAwaitAwaiterFromRuntimeAsync<TAwaiter>(TAwaiter awaiter) where TAwaiter : ICriticalNotifyCompletion
public static void Await(ValueTask task);
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]
public static T Await<T>(Task<T> task);
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Async)]
public static T Await<T>(ValueTask<T> task);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the MethodImpl part is uninteresting for the spec – it really is an implementation detail of SPC whether or not this bit is set for these, and consumers should not be using it to make any decisions. Similarly for AwaitAwaiterFromRuntimeAsync.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're right. The only thing that might be useful is some sort of signifier meaning "async method only"

Copy link
Member

@VSadov VSadov Jan 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Await cannot be formally an async method, since it would need to return Task.

}
}
```

Each of the above methods will have semantics analogous to the current AsyncTaskMethodBuilder.AwaitOnCompleted/AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted methods. After calling this method, it can be presumed that the task has completed.
These methods are only legal to call inside async methods. The `...AwaitAwaiter...` methods will have semantics analogous to the current `AsyncTaskMethodBuilder.AwaitOnCompleted/AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted` methods. After calling either method, it can be presumed that the task or awaiter has completed. The `Await` methods perform suspension like the `AwaitAwaiter...` methods, but are optimized for calling on the return value of a call to an async method. To achieve maximum performance, the IL sequence of two `call` instructions -- one to the async method and immediately one to the `Await` method -- should be preferred.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These methods are only legal to call inside async methods

From a language perspective, we'd probably have to make an actual change to C# enforce this as a compiler error. We could do a warning without any issue though.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it worth putting something like a modreq(AsyncOnly) on it?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could, though I'm not sure that would actually help. It's still technically a language change to forbid calling the method.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think it's a language change -- the compiler is free to provide more errors than mandated by the spec. For example, "this program is too complex to compile" or the errors provided around usage of the ParamArrayAttribute and similar.


Only local variables which are "hoisted" may be used across suspension points. That is, only "hoisted" local variables will have their state preserved after returning from a suspension. On methods with the `localsinit` flag set, non-"hoisted" local variables will be initialized to their default value when resuming from suspension. Otherwise, these variables will have an undefined value. To identify "hoisted" local variables, they must have an optional custom modifier to the `System.Runtime.CompilerServices.HoistedLocal` class, which will be a new .NET runtime API. This custom modifier must be the last custom modifier on the variable. It is invalid for by-ref variables, or variables with a by-ref-like type, to be marked hoisted. Hoisted local variables are stored in managed memory and cannot be converted to unmanaged pointers without explicit pinning.
The code generator is free to ignore the `HoistedLocal` modifier if it can prove that this makes no observable difference in the execution of the generated program. This can be observable in diagnostics since it may mean the value of a local with the `HoistedLocal` modifier will not be available after certain suspension points.
Expand All @@ -59,31 +68,10 @@ Other restrictions are likely to be permanent, including
* Suspension points may not appear in exception handling blocks.
* Only four types will be supported as the return type for "runtime-async" methods: `System.Threading.Task`, `System.Threading.ValueTask`, `System.Threading.Task<T>`, and `System.Threading.ValueTask<T>`

All async methods effectively have two entry points, or signatures. The first signature is the one present in method definitions: a `Task` or `ValueTask` returning method. The second signature is a "secondary signature", described in further detail in [I.8.6.1.5 Method signatures].

Callers may retrieve a Task/ValueTask return type from an async method via calling its primary, definitional signature. This functionality is available in both sync and async methods.

### II.23.1.11 Flags for methods [MethodImplAttributes]

| Flag | Value | Description |
| ------------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
|Async |0x0400 |Method is an Async Method.|

### I.8.6.1.5 Method signatures

The list of relevant components is augmented to include sync vs. async method types. Async methods have some additions to normal signature compatibility.

Async methods are capable of calling certain methods using an "unwrapping signature." The target method must return one of `Task`, `ValueTask`, `Task<T>`, or `ValueTask<T>`.

The unwrapping signature is generated based on the primary signature. The transformation is as follows:
* If the target method return type is `Task` or `ValueTask`, the return type of the unwrapping signature is `void` with the first custom modifier on the return type being the original type.
* Otherwise, the return type is the type argument of the return type (either ``Task`1`` or ``ValueTask`1``) with the first custom modifier on the return type being the original type.

It is an error to declare a method with an "unwrapping signature".

_[Note: these rules operate before generic substitution, meaning that a method which only meets requirements after substitution would not be considered as valid.]_

### II.15.4.6 async methods

In certain cases described in [I.8.6.1.5 Method signatures], MethodDef definitions for some methods may have two valid invocation signatures. All call sites to a "secondary" signature must use a MethodRef, even if the method is definined inside the same module or assembly. The "primary" definition can be called using a regular `MethodDef` token.
Loading