Short answer
No, as you wrote your two async
methods, they are indeed not running in parallel. Adding await Task.Yield();
to your first method (e.g. inside the loop) would allow them to do so, but there are more reasonable and straightforward methods, highly depending on what you actually need (interleaved execution on a single thread? Actual parallel execution on multiple threads?).
Long answer
First of all, declaring functions as async
does not inherently make them run asynchronously or something. It rather simplifies the syntax to do so - read more about the concepts here: Asynchronous Programming with Async and Await
Effectively A
is not asynchronous at all, as there is not a single await
inside its method body. Instructions up to the first use of await
run synchronously like a regular method would.
From then on, the object that you await
determines what happens next, i.e. the context that the remaining method runs in.
To force execution of a task to happen on another thread, use Task.Run
or similar.
In this scenario, adding await Task.Yield()
does the trick since the current synchronization context is null
and this happens to indeed cause the task scheduler (should be ThreadPoolTaskScheduler
) to execute the remaining instuctions on a thread-pool thread - some environment or configuration might cause you to only have one of them, so things would still not run in parallel.
Summary
The moral of the story is: Be aware of the differences between two concepts:
- concurrency (which is enabled by using
async
/await
reasonably) and
- parallelism (which only happens when concurrent tasks get scheduled the right way or if you enforce it using
Task.Run
, Thread
, etc. in which case the use of async
is completely irrelevant anyway)
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…