Introduction to Rx
Kindle edition (2012)
Practical Rx Training
London 24-25 March 2015
Presented by the author of IntroToRx.com
PART 4 - Concurrency
Rx is primarily a system for querying data in motion asynchronously. To effectively provide the level of asynchrony that developers require, some level of concurrency control is required. We need the ability to generate sequence data concurrently to the consumption of the sequence data.
In this fourth and final part of the book, we will look at the various concurrency considerations one must undertake when querying data in motion. We will look how to avoid concurrency when possible and use it correctly when justifiable. We will look at the excellent abstractions Rx provides, that enable concurrency to become declarative and also unit testable. In my opinion, theses two features are enough reason alone to adopt Rx into your code base. We will also look at the complex issue of querying concurrent sequences and analyzing data in sliding windows of time.
Scheduling and threading
So far, we have managed to avoid any explicit usage of threading or concurrency. There are some methods that we have covered that implicitly introduce some level of concurrency to perform their jobs (e.g. Buffer, Delay, Sample each require a separate thread/scheduler/timer to work their magic). Most of this however, has been kindly abstracted away from us. This chapter will look at the elegant beauty of the Rx API and its ability to effectively remove the need for WaitHandle types, and any explicit calls to Threads, the ThreadPool or Tasks.
Rx is single-threaded by default
A popular misconception is that Rx is multithreaded by default. It is perhaps more an idle assumption than a strong belief, much in the same way some assume that standard .NET events are multithreaded until they challenge that notion. We debunk this myth and assert that events are most certainly single threaded and synchronous in the Appendix.
Like events, Rx is just a way of chaining callbacks together for a given notification.
While Rx is a free-threaded model, this does not mean that subscribing or calling
OnNext will introduce multi-threading to your sequence. Being free-threaded
means that you are not restricted to which thread you choose to do your work. For
example, you can choose to do your work such as invoking a subscription, observing
or producing notifications, on any thread you like. The alternative to a free-threaded
model is a Single Threaded Apartment (STA) model where you must interact
with the system on a given thread. It is common to use the STA model when working
with User Interfaces and some COM interop. So, just as a recap: if you do not introduce
any scheduling, your callbacks will be invoked on the same thread that the OnNext/OnError/OnCompleted
methods are invoked from.
In this example, we create a subject then call OnNext on various threads and record the threadId in our handler.
Note that each OnNext was called back on the same thread that it was notified on. This is not always what we are looking for. Rx introduces a very handy mechanism for introducing concurrency and multithreading to your code: Scheduling.
SubscribeOn and ObserveOn
In the Rx world, there are generally two things you want to control the concurrency model for:
- The invocation of the subscription
- The observing of notifications
As you could probably guess, these are exposed via two extension methods to IObservable<T> called SubscribeOn and ObserveOn. Both methods have an overload that take an IScheduler (or SynchronizationContext) and return an IObservable<T> so you can chain methods together.
One pitfall I want to point out here is, the first few times I used these overloads, I was confused as to what they actually do. You should use the SubscribeOn method to describe how you want any warm-up and background processing code to be scheduled. For example, if you were to use SubscribeOn with Observable.Create, the delegate passed to the Create method would be run on the specified scheduler.
In this example, we have a sequence produced by Observable.Create with a standard subscription.
You will notice that all actions were performed on the same thread. Also, note that
everything is sequential. When the subscription is made, the Create delegate
is called. When
OnNext(1) is called, the OnNext handler is
called, and so on. This all stays synchronous until the Create delegate
is finished, and the Subscribe line can move on to the final line that
declares we are subscribed on thread 9.
If we apply SubscribeOn to the chain (i.e. un-comment it), the order of execution is quite different.
Observe that the subscribe call is now non-blocking. The Create delegate is executed on the thread pool and so are all our handlers.
The ObserveOn method is used to declare where you want your notifications to be scheduled to. I would suggest the ObserveOn method is most useful when working with STA systems, most commonly UI applications. When writing UI applications, the SubscribeOn/ObserveOn pair is very useful for two reasons:
- you do not want to block the UI thread
- but you do need to update UI objects on the UI thread.
It is critical to avoid blocking the UI thread, as doing so leads to a poor user
experience. General guidance for Silverlight and WPF is that any work that blocks
for longer than 150-250ms should not be performed on the UI thread (Dispatcher).
This is approximately the period of time over which a user can notice a lag in the
UI (mouse becomes sticky, animations sluggish). In the upcoming Metro style apps
for Windows 8, the maximum allowed blocking time is only 50ms. This more stringent
rule is to ensure a consistent
fast and fluid experience across applications.
With the processing power offered by current desktop processors, you can achieve
a lot of processing 50ms. However, as processor become more varied (single/multi/many
core, plus high power desktop vs. lower power ARM tablet/phones), how much you can
do in 50ms fluctuates widely. In general terms: any I/O, computational intensive
work or any processing unrelated to the UI should be marshaled off the UI thread.
The general pattern for creating responsive UI applications is:
- respond to some sort of user action
- do work on a background thread
- pass the result back to the UI thread
- update the UI
This is a great fit for Rx: responding to events, potentially composing multiple events, passing data to chained method calls. With the inclusion of scheduling, we even have the power to get off and back onto the UI thread for that responsive application feel that users demand.
Consider a WPF application that used Rx to populate an ObservableCollection<T>.
You would almost certainly want to use SubscribeOn to leave the Dispatcher,
followed by ObserveOn to ensure you were notified back on the Dispatcher.
If you failed to use the ObserveOn method, then your OnNext handlers
would be invoked on the same thread that raised the notification. In Silverlight/WPF,
this would cause some sort of not-supported/cross-threading exception. In this example,
we subscribe to a sequence of
Customers. We perform the subscription
on a new thread and ensure that as we receive
we add them to the
Customers collection on the Dispatcher.
The SubscribeOn and ObserveOn methods required us to pass in an IScheduler. Here we will dig a little deeper and see what schedulers are, and what implementations are available to us.
There are two main types we use when working with schedulers:
- The IScheduler interface
- A common interface for all schedulers
- The static Scheduler class
- Exposes both implementations of IScheduler and helpful extension methods to the IScheduler interface
The IScheduler interface is of less importance right now than the types that implement the interface. The key concept to understand is that an IScheduler in Rx is used to schedule some action to be performed, either as soon as possible or at a given point in the future. The implementation of the IScheduler defines how that action will be invoked i.e. asynchronously via a thread pool, a new thread or a message pump, or synchronously on the current thread. Depending on your platform (Silverlight 4, Silverlight 5, .NET 3.5, .NET 4.0), you will be exposed most of the implementations you will need via a static class Scheduler.
Before we look at the IScheduler interface in detail, let's look at the extension method we will use the most often and then introduce the common implementations.
This is the most commonly used (extension) method for IScheduler. It simply sets an action to be performed as soon as possible.
You could use the method like this:
These are the static properties that you can find on the Scheduler type.
Scheduler.Immediate will ensure the action is not scheduled, but rather executed immediately.
Scheduler.CurrentThread ensures that the actions are performed on the thread that made the original call. This is different from Immediate, as CurrentThread will queue the action to be performed. We will compare these two schedulers using a code example soon.
Scheduler.NewThread will schedule work to be done on a new thread.
Scheduler.ThreadPool will schedule all actions to take place on the Thread Pool.
Scheduler.TaskPool will schedule actions onto the TaskPool. This is not available in Silverlight 4 or .NET 3.5 builds.
If you are using WPF or Silverlight, then you will also have access to DispatcherScheduler.Instance. This allows you to schedule tasks onto the Dispatcher with the common interface, either now or in the future. There is the SubscribeOnDispatcher() and ObserveOnDispatcher() extension methods to IObservable<T>, that also help you access the Dispatcher. While they appear useful, you will want to avoid these two methods for production code, and we explain why in the Testing Rx chapter.
Most of the schedulers listed above are quite self explanatory for basic usage. We will take an in-depth look at all of the implementations of IScheduler later in the chapter.
Introducing concurrency to your application will increase its complexity. If your application is not noticeably improved by adding a layer of concurrency, then you should avoid doing so. Concurrent applications can exhibit maintenance problems with symptoms surfacing in the areas of debugging, testing and refactoring.
The common problem that concurrency introduces is unpredictable timing. Unpredictable timing can be caused by variable load on a system, as well as variations in system configurations (e.g. varying core clock speed and availability of processors). These can ultimately can result in race conditions. Symptoms of race conditions include out-of-order execution, deadlocks, livelocks and corrupted state.
In my opinion, the biggest danger when introducing concurrency haphazardly to an application, is that you can silently introduce bugs. These defects may slip past Development, QA and UAT and only manifest themselves in Production environments.
Rx, however, does such a good job of simplifying the concurrent processing of observable sequences that many of these concerns can be mitigated. You can still create problems, but if you follow the guidelines then you can feel a lot safer in the knowledge that you have heavily reduced the capacity for unwanted race conditions.
In a later chapter, Testing Rx, we will look at how Rx improves your ability to test concurrent workflows.
When working on my first commercial application that used Rx, the team found out the hard way that Rx code can most certainly deadlock. When you consider that some calls (like First, Last, Single and ForEach) are blocking, and that we can schedule work to be done in the future, it becomes obvious that a race condition can occur. This example is the simplest block I could think of. Admittedly, it is fairly elementary but it will get the ball rolling.
Hopefully, we won't ever write such code though, and if we did, our tests would give us quick feedback that things went wrong. More realistically, race conditions often slip into the system at integration points. The next example may be a little harder to detect, but is only small step away from our first, unrealistic example. Here, we block in the constructor of a UI element which will always be created on the dispatcher. The blocking call is waiting for an event that can only be raised from the dispatcher, thus creating a deadlock.
Next, we start seeing things that can become more sinister. The button's click handler will try to get the first value from an observable sequence exposed via an interface.
There is only one small problem here in that we block on the Dispatcher
First is a blocking call), however this manifests itself into
a deadlock if the service code is written incorrectly.
This odd implementation, with explicit scheduling, will cause the three
calls to be scheduled once the
First() call has finished; however,
that is waiting for an OnNext to be called: we are deadlocked.
So far, this chapter may seem to say that concurrency is all doom and gloom by focusing on the problems you could face; this is not the intent though. We do not magically avoid classic concurrency problems simply by adopting Rx. Rx will however make it easier to get it right, provided you follow these two simple rules.
- Only the final subscriber should be setting the scheduling
- Avoid using blocking calls: e.g. First, Last and Single
The last example came unstuck with one simple problem; the service was dictating the scheduling paradigm when, really, it had no business doing so. Before we had a clear idea of where we should be doing the scheduling in my first Rx project, we had all sorts of layers adding 'helpful' scheduling code. What it ended up creating was a threading nightmare. When we removed all the scheduling code and then confined it it in a single layer (at least in the Silverlight client), most of our concurrency problems went away. I recommend you do the same. At least in WPF/Silverlight applications, the pattern should be simple: "Subscribe on a Background thread; Observe on the Dispatcher".
Advanced features of schedulers
We have only looked at the most simple usage of schedulers so far:
- Scheduling an action to be executed as soon as possible
- Scheduling the subscription of an observable sequence
- Scheduling the observation of notifications coming from an observable sequence
Schedulers also provide more advanced features that can help you with various problems.
In the extension method to IScheduler we have looked at, you could only provide an Action to execute. This Action did not accept any parameters. If you want to pass state to the Action, you could use a closure to share the data like this:
This could create a problem, as you are sharing state across two different scopes. I could modify the variable myName and get unexpected results.
In this example, we use a closure as above to pass state. I immediately modify the closure and this creates a race condition: will my modification happen before or after the state is used by the scheduler?
In my tests, "John" is generally written to the console when scheduler is an instance of NewThreadScheduler. If I use the ImmediateScheduler then "Lee" would be written. The problem with this is the non-deterministic nature of the code.
A preferable way to pass state is to use the Schedule overloads that accept state. This example takes advantage of this overload, giving us certainty about our state.
Here, we pass myName as the state. We also pass a delegate that will take the state and return a disposable. The disposable is used for cancellation; we will look into that later. The delegate also takes an IScheduler parameter, which we name "_" (underscore). This is the convention to indicate we are ignoring the argument. When we pass myName as the state, a reference to the state is kept internally. So when we update the myName variable to "John", the reference to "Lee" is still maintained by the scheduler's internal workings.
Note that in our previous example, we modify the myName variable to point to a new instance of a string. If we were to instead have an instance that we actually modified, we could still get unpredictable behavior. In the next example, we now use a list for our state. After scheduling an action to print out the element count of the list, we modify that list.
Now that we are modifying shared state, we can get unpredictable results. In this example, we don't even know what type the scheduler is, so we cannot predict the race conditions we are creating. As with any concurrent software, you should avoid modifying shared state.
As you would expect with a type called "IScheduler", you are able to schedule an action to be executed in the future. You can do so by specifying the exact point in time an action should be invoked, or you can specify the period of time to wait until the action is invoked. This is clearly useful for features such as buffering, timers etc.
Scheduling in the future is thus made possible by two styles of overloads, one that takes a TimeSpan and one that takes a DateTimeOffset. These are the two most simple overloads that execute an action in the future.
You can use the TimeSpan overload like this:
We can see therefore that scheduling is non-blocking as the 'before' and 'after' calls are very close together in time. You can also see that approximately one second after the action was scheduled, it was invoked.
You can specify a specific point in time to schedule the task with the DateTimeOffset overload. If, for some reason, the point in time you specify is in the past, then the action is scheduled as soon as possible.
Each of the overloads to Schedule returns an IDisposable; this way, a consumer can cancel the scheduled work. In the previous example, we scheduled work to be invoked in one second. We could cancel that work by disposing of the cancellation token (i.e. the return value).
Note that the scheduled action never occurs, as we have cancelled it almost immediately.
When the user cancels the scheduled action method before the scheduler is able to invoke it, that action is just removed from the queue of work. This is what we see in example above. If you want to cancel scheduled work that is already running, then you can use one of the overloads to the Schedule method that takes a Func<IDisposable>. This gives a way for users to cancel out of a job that may already be running. This job could be some sort of I/O, heavy computations or perhaps usage of Task to perform some work.
Now this may create a problem; if you want to cancel work that has already been started, you need to dispose of an instance of IDisposable, but how do you return the disposable if you are still doing the work? You could fire up another thread so the work happens concurrently, but creating threads is something we are trying to steer away from.
In this example, we have a method that we will use as the delegate to be scheduled. It just fakes some work by performing a spin wait and adding values to the list argument. The key here is that we allow the user to cancel with the CancellationToken via the disposable we return.
This code schedules the above code and allows the user to cancel the processing work by pressing Enter
The problem here is that we have introduced explicit use of Task. We can avoid explicit usage of a concurrency model if we use the Rx recursive scheduler features instead.
The more advanced overloads of Schedule extension methods take some strange looking delegates as parameters. Take special note of the final parameter in each of these overloads of the Schedule extension method.
Each of these overloads take a delegate "action" that allows you to call "action" recursively. This may seem a very odd signature, but it makes for a great API. This effectively allows you to create a recursive delegate call. This may be best shown with an example.
This example uses the most simple recursive overload. We have an Action that can be called recursively.
Note that we didn't have to write any cancellation code in our delegate. Rx handled the looping and checked for cancellation on our behalf. Brilliant! Unlike simple recursive methods in C#, we are also protected from stack overflows, as Rx provides an extra level of abstraction. Indeed, Rx takes our recursive method and transforms it to a loop structure instead.
Creating your own iterator
Earlier in the book, we looked at how we can use Rx with APM. In our example, we just read the entire file into memory. We also referenced Jeffery van Gogh's blog post, which sadly is now out of date; however, his concepts are still sound. Instead of the Iterator method from Jeffery's post, we can use schedulers to achieve the same result.
The goal of the following sample is to open a file and stream it in chunks. This enables us to work with files that are larger than the memory available to us, as we would only ever read and cache a portion of the file at a time. In addition to this, we can leverage the compositional nature of Rx to apply multiple transformations to the file such as encryption and compression. By reading chunks at a time, we are able to start the other transformations before we have finished reading the file.
First, let us refresh our memory with how to get from the FileStream's APM methods into Rx.
The example above uses FromAsyncPattern to create a factory. The factory will take a byte array (buffer), an offset (0) and a length (source.Length); it effectively returns the count of the bytes read as a single-value sequence. When the sequence (reader) is subscribed to, BeginRead will read values, starting from the offset, into the buffer. In this case, we will read the whole file. Once the file has been read into the buffer, the sequence (reader) will push the single value (bytesRead) in to the sequence.
This is all fine, but if we want to read chunks of data at a time then this is not good enough. We need to specify the buffer size we want to use. Let's start with 4KB (4096 bytes).
This works but will only read a max of 4KB from the file. If the file is larger, we want to keep reading all of it. As the Position of the FileStream will have advanced to the point it stopped reading, we can reuse the factory to reload the buffer. Next, we want to start pushing these bytes into an observable sequence. Let's start by creating the signature of an extension method.
We can ensure that our extension method is lazily evaluated by using Observable.Create. We can also ensure that the FileStream is closed when the consumer disposes of the subscription by taking advantage of the Observable.Using operator.
Next, we want to leverage the scheduler's recursive functionality to continuously read chunks of data while still providing the user with the ability to dispose/cancel when they choose. This creates a bit of a pickle; we can only pass in one state parameter but need to manage multiple moving parts (buffer, factory, filestream). To do this, we create our own private helper class:
This class will allow us to read data into a buffer, then read the next chunk by
ReadNext(). In our Observable.Create delegate, we
instantiate our helper class and use it to push the buffer into our observable sequence.
So this gets us off the ground, but we are still do not support reading files larger than the buffer. Now, we need to add recursive scheduling. To do this, we need a delegate to fit the required signature. We will need one that accepts a StreamReaderState and can recursively call an Action<StreamReaderState>.
We now have an iterator action that will:
- call ReadNext()
- subscribe to the result
- push the buffer into the observable sequence
- and recursively call itself.
We also schedule this recursive action to be called on the provided scheduler. Next, we want to complete the sequence when we get to the end of the file. This is easy, we maintain the recursion until the bytesRead is 0.
At this point, we have an extension method that iterates on the bytes from a file stream. Finally, let us apply some clean up so that we correctly manage our resources and exceptions, and the finished method looks something like this:
This is example code and your mileage may vary. I find that increasing the buffer size and returning IObservable<IList<byte>> suits me better, but the example above works fine too. The goal here was to provide an example of an iterator that provides concurrent I/O access with cancellation and resource-efficient buffering.
Combinations of scheduler features
We have discussed many features that you can use with the IScheduler interface. Most of these examples, however, are actually using extension methods to invoke the functionality that we are looking for. The interface itself exposes the richest overloads. The extension methods are effectively just making a trade-off; improving usability/discoverability by reducing the richness of the overload. If you want access to passing state, cancellation, future scheduling and recursion, it is all available directly from the interface methods.
We have largely been concerned with the abstract concept of a scheduler and the IScheduler interface. This abstraction allows low-level plumbing to remain agnostic towards the implementation of the concurrency model. As in the file reader example above, there was no need for the code to know which implementation of IScheduler was passed, as this is a concern of the consuming code.
Now we take an in-depth look at each implementation of IScheduler, consider the benefits and tradeoffs they each make, and when each is appropriate to use.
The ImmediateScheduler is exposed via the Scheduler.Immediate static property. This is the most simple of schedulers as it does not actually schedule anything. If you call Schedule(Action) then it will just invoke the action. If you schedule the action to be invoked in the future, the ImmediateScheduler will invoke a Thread.Sleep for the given period of time and then execute the action. In summary, the ImmediateScheduler is synchronous.
Like the ImmediateScheduler, the CurrentThreadScheduler is single-threaded. It is exposed via the Scheduler.Current static property. The key difference is that the CurrentThreadScheduler acts like a message queue or a Trampoline. If you schedule an action that itself schedules an action, the CurrentThreadScheduler will queue the inner action to be performed later; in contrast, the ImmediateScheduler would start working on the inner action straight away. This is probably best explained with an example.
In this example, we analyze how ImmediateScheduler and CurrentThreadScheduler perform nested scheduling differently.
Note how the ImmediateScheduler does not really "schedule" anything at all, all work is performed immediately (synchronously). As soon as Schedule is called with a delegate, that delegate is invoked. The CurrentThreadScheduler, however, invokes the first delegate, and, when nested delegates are scheduled, queues them to be invoked later. Once the initial delegate is complete, the queue is checked for any remaining delegates (i.e. nested calls to Schedule) and they are invoked. The difference here is quite important as you can potentially get out-of-order execution, unexpected blocking, or even deadlocks by using the wrong one.
The DispatcherScheduler is found in System.Reactive.Window.Threading.dll (for WPF, Silverlight 4 and Silverlight 5). When actions are scheduled using the DispatcherScheduler, they are effectively marshaled to the Dispatcher's BeginInvoke method. This will add the action to the end of the dispatcher's Normal priority queue of work. This provides similar queuing semantics to the CurrentThreadScheduler for nested calls to Schedule.
When an action is scheduled for future work, then a DispatcherTimer is created with a matching interval. The callback for the timer's tick will stop the timer and re-schedule the work onto the DispatcherScheduler. If the DispatcherScheduler determines that the dueTime is actually not in the future then no timer is created, and the action will just be scheduled normally.
I would like to highlight a hazard of using the DispatcherScheduler. You can construct your own instance of a DispatcherScheduler by passing in a reference to a Dispatcher. The alternative way is to use the static property DispatcherScheduler.Instance. This can introduce hard to understand problems if it is not used properly. The static property does not return a reference to a static field, but creates a new instance each time, with the static property Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher as the constructor argument. If you access Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher from a thread that is not the UI thread, it will thus give you a new instance of a Dispatcher, but it will not be the instance you were hoping for.
For example, imagine that we have a WPF application with an Observable.Create method. In the delegate that we pass to Observable.Create, we want to schedule the notifications on the dispatcher. We think this is a good idea because any consumers of the sequence would get the notifications on the dispatcher for free.
This code may intuitively seem correct, but actually takes away power from consumers
of the sequence. When we subscribe to the sequence, we decide that reading a file
on the UI thread is a bad idea. So we add in a
to the chain as below:
This causes the create delegate to be executed on a new thread. The delegate will read the file then get an instance of a DispatcherScheduler. The DispatcherScheduler tries to get the Dispatcher for the current thread, but we are no longer on the UI thread, so there isn't one. As such, it creates a new dispatcher that is used for the DispatcherScheduler instance. We schedule some work (the notifications), but, as the underlying Dispatcher has not been run, nothing happens; we do not even get an exception. I have seen this on a commercial project and it left quite a few people scratching their heads.
This takes us to one of our guidelines regarding scheduling:
the use of SubscribeOn
and ObserveOn should only be invoked by the final subscriber. If
you introduce scheduling in your own extension methods or service methods, you should
allow the consumer to specify their own scheduler. We will see more reasons for
this guidance in the next chapter.
The EventLoopScheduler allows you to designate a specific thread to a scheduler. Like the CurrentThreadScheduler that acts like a trampoline for nested scheduled actions, the EventLoopScheduler provides the same trampoline mechanism. The difference is that you provide an EventLoopScheduler with the thread you want it to use for scheduling instead, of just picking up the current thread.
The EventLoopScheduler can be created with an empty constructor, or you can pass it a thread factory delegate.
The overload that allows you to pass a factory enables you to customize the thread before it is assigned to the EventLoopScheduler. For example, you can set the thread name, priority, culture and most importantly whether the thread is a background thread or not. Remember that if you do not set the thread's property IsBackground to false, then your application will not terminate until it the thread is terminated. The EventLoopScheduler implements IDisposable, and calling Dispose will allow the thread to terminate. As with any implementation of IDisposable, it is appropriate that you explicitly manage the lifetime of the resources you create.
This can work nicely with the Observable.Using method, if you are so inclined.
This allows you to bind the lifetime of your EventLoopScheduler to that
of an observable sequence - for example, this
GetPrices method that
takes an IScheduler for an argument and returns an observable sequence.
Here we bind the lifetime of the EventLoopScheduler to that of the result
If you do not wish to manage the resources of a thread or an EventLoopScheduler, then you can use NewThreadScheduler. You can create your own instance of NewThreadScheduler or get access to the static instance via the property Scheduler.NewThread. Like EventLoopScheduler, you can use the parameterless constructor or provide your own thread factory function. If you do provide your own factory, be careful to set the IsBackground property appropriately.
When you call Schedule on the NewThreadScheduler, you are actually creating an EventLoopScheduler under the covers. This way, any nested scheduling will happen on the same thread. Subsequent (non-nested) calls to Schedule will create a new EventLoopScheduler and call the thread factory function for a new thread too.
In this example we run a piece of code reminiscent of our comparison between Immediate
and Current schedulers. The difference here, however, is that we track
ThreadId that the action is performed on. We use the Schedule
overload that allows us to pass the Scheduler instance into our nested delegates.
This allows us to correctly nest calls.
When executed with the NewThreadScheduler like this:
As you can see, the results are very similar to the CurrentThreadScheduler, except that the trampoline happens on a separate thread. This is in fact exactly the output we would get if we used an EventLoopScheduler. The differences between usages of the EventLoopScheduler and the NewThreadScheduler start to appear when we introduce a second (non-nested) scheduled task.
Note that there are now three threads at play here. Thread 9 is the thread we started on and threads 10 and 11 are performing the work for our two calls to Schedule.
The ThreadPoolScheduler will simply just tunnel requests to the ThreadPool. For requests that are scheduled as soon as possible, the action is just sent to ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem. For requests that are scheduled in the future, a System.Threading.Timer is used.
As all actions are sent to the ThreadPool, actions can potentially run out of order. Unlike the previous schedulers we have looked at, nested calls are not guaranteed to be processed serially. We can see this by running the same test as above but with the ThreadPoolScheduler.
Note, that as per the NewThreadScheduler test, we initially start on one thread but all the scheduling happens on two other threads. The difference is that we can see that part of the second run "B" runs on thread 11 while another part of it runs on 10.
The TaskPoolScheduler is very similar to the ThreadPoolScheduler and, when available (depending on your target framework), you should favor it over the later. Like the ThreadPoolScheduler, nested scheduled actions are not guaranteed to be run on the same thread. Running the same test with the TaskPoolScheduler shows us similar results.
It is worth noting that there is also a TestScheduler accompanied by its base classes VirtualTimeScheduler and VirtualTimeSchedulerBase. The latter two are not really in the scope of an introduction to Rx, but the former is. We will cover all things testing including the TestScheduler in the next chapter, Testing Rx.
Selecting an appropriate scheduler
With all of these options to choose from, it can be hard to know which scheduler to use and when. Here is a simple check list to help you in this daunting task:
- The final subscriber is normally the presentation layer and should control the scheduling.
- Observe on the DispatcherScheduler to allow updating of ViewModels
- Subscribe on a background thread to prevent the UI from becoming unresponsive
- If the subscription will not block for more than 50ms then
- Use the TaskPoolScheduler if available, or
- Use the ThreadPoolScheduler
- If any part of the subscription could block for longer than 50ms, then you should use the NewThreadScheduler.
- If the subscription will not block for more than 50ms then
- If your service is reading data from a queue of some sort, consider using a dedicated EventLoopScheduler. This way, you can preserve order of events
- If processing an item is expensive (>50ms or requires I/O), then consider using a NewThreadScheduler
- If you just need the scheduler for a timer, e.g. for Observable.Interval or Observable.Timer, then favor the TaskPool. Use the ThreadPool if the TaskPool is not available for your platform.
The ThreadPool (and the TaskPool by proxy) have a time delay before they will increase the number of threads that they use. This delay is 500ms. Let us consider a PC with two cores that we will schedule four actions onto. By default, the thread pool size will be the number of cores (2). If each action takes 1000ms, then two actions will be sitting in the queue for 500ms before the thread pool size is increased. Instead of running all four actions in parallel, which would take one second in total, the work is not completed for 1.5 seconds as two of the actions sat in the queue for 500ms. For this reason, you should only schedule work that is very fast to execute (guideline 50ms) onto the ThreadPool or TaskPool. Conversely, creating a new thread is not free, but with the power of processors today the creation of a thread for work over 50ms is a small cost.
Concurrency is hard. We can choose to make our life easier by taking advantage of Rx and its scheduling features. We can improve it even further by only using Rx where appropriate. While Rx has concurrency features, these should not be mistaken for a concurrency framework. Rx is designed for querying data, and as discussed in the first chapter, parallel computations or composition of asynchronous methods is more appropriate for other frameworks.
Rx solves the issues for concurrently generating and consuming data via the ObserveOn/SubscribeOn methods. By using these appropriately, we can simplify our code base, increase responsiveness and reduce the surface area of our concurrency concerns. Schedulers provide a rich platform for processing work concurrently without the need to be exposed directly to threading primitives. They also help with common troublesome areas of concurrency such as cancellation, passing state and recursion. By reducing the concurrency surface area, Rx provides a (relatively) simple yet powerful set of concurrency features paving the way to the pit of success.
Additional recommended reading
|<< Back to : Hot and Cold observables||Moving on to : Testing Rx>>|