If cond is True and some or all of coro() completes eagerly, any side-effects of this will be observable in further execution. If tg.create_task() is used instead, no part of coro() will be executed if cond is True.

If I didn't already understand the changes to async functions you are proposing I wouldn't understand what this means (or the code fragment above it). What does cond refer to? I think what you are trying to say here is that, if the body of the with TaskGroup() block raises before the first await, it will cancel all created tasks before they have started executing. Right?

Separately -- Can you remind me of the reason to make this a TaskGroup method instead of a new flag on create_task()? And the enqueue() name feels odd, especially since it may immediately execute some of the coroutine, which seems the opposite of putting something in a queue.

To be clear, I have no objection to the feature, and I think making this an opt-in part of task creation avoids worries of changing semantics for something as simple as await coro().

Separately -- Can you remind me of the reason to make this a TaskGroup method instead of a new flag on create_task()? And the enqueue() name feels odd, especially since it may immediately execute some of the coroutine, which seems the opposite of putting something in a queue.

This came up in the conversation we had with @DinoV during the Language Summit. We started out with a flag on create_task (e.g. eager=True), but we didn't like the fact that when setting this flag, the name of the method may now be misleading (because, in fact, it may not create a task).
enqueue was the alternative (I don't remember who suggested it and why), but we can definitely bikeshed the naming :)
If we take inspiration from Trio's nurseries, we can use start_soon.
Other options are execute or run (although these names may be misleading too, since users may assume these APIs never create a task).

If I didn't already understand the changes to async functions you are proposing I wouldn't understand what this means (or the code fragment above it). What does cond refer to? I think what you are trying to say here is that, if the body of the with TaskGroup() block raises before the first await, it will cancel all created tasks before they have started executing. Right?

Right. Yeah, this is more contrived than needed, I'll fix up the text.

This came up in the conversation we had with @DinoV during the Language Summit. We started out with a flag on create_task (e.g. eager=True), but we didn't like the fact that when setting this flag, the name of the method may now be misleading (because, in fact, it may not create a task).

I wasn't in this conversation but when writing this issue it occurred to me that even with eager execution we could still return something Task-like. This would mitigate any issues with knowing the interface of the returned object (e.g. is cancel() available). This would also mean the name create_task() would still make sense even with a keyword-argument to alter the behavior. Unless, I'm missing something which doesn't make this viable?

Having said this, I think eager execution should be the default behavior users reach for going forward. So it might still be better to have a new method.

Thanks for fixing up the description, it's clear now.

I wasn't in this conversation but when writing this issue it occurred to me that even with eager execution we could still return something Task-like. This would mitigate any issues with knowing the interface of the returned object (e.g. is cancel() available). This would also mean the name create_task() would still make sense even with a keyword-argument to alter the behavior. Unless, I'm missing something which doesn't make this viable?

It could return a Future, which has many of the same methods. If the coroutine returns an immediate result that could be the Future's result.

However, if the result is generally not used though the need to return something with appropriate methods would just reduce the performance benefit.

Having said this, I think eager execution should be the default behavior users reach for going forward. So it might still be better to have a new method.

Yeah, that is definitely an advantage of a new method name. I find enqueue() rather easy to mistype though.

Have the performance results been repeated with TaskGroup.enqueue(), or are the quoted measurements based on the Cinder implementation using gather()? There could be surprises here.

Have the performance results been repeated with TaskGroup.enqueue(), or are the quoted measurements based on the Cinder implementation using gather()? There could be surprises here.

The benchmark showing an 8x improvement (etc.) is with Dino's prototype of TaskGroup.enqueue() against some revision of 3.11. This is functional, but still needs some work. Notably it does not yet implement management of the current Context when eagerly executing. There will be some extra overhead from that but my hope is it'll be negligible.

It could return a Future, which has many of the same methods. If the coroutine returns an immediate result that could be the Future's result.

However, if the result is generally not used though the need to return something with appropriate methods would just reduce the performance benefit.

Dino's prototype currently returns a newly constructed Future if the eager execution fully completes, but returns a Task otherwise. While I can imagine it'll be less common to use the extra fields on Task, it might be annoying to have to think about whether a Future or a Task is returned. Again, unless I missed something, I don't think there should be extra overhead from returning some kind of eagerly-completed-Task value vs. a completed Future.

I find enqueue() rather easy to mistype though.

Indeed, I have misspelled it a number of times already. I like start_soon or start_immediate which to me imply execution start time may not be bound by the async with scope.

For a new API, returning either a Future or a Task is totally fine -- Task is a subclass of Future, so we can just document it as returning a Future.

I hadn't realized the prototype doesn't even need C changes -- I had assumed it depended on the changes to vectorcall to pass through a bit indicating it's being awaited immediately. Is that change even needed once we have this? (Probably we resolved that already during discussions at PyCon, it's just so long ago I can't remember anything.)

I think we need to bikeshed some more on the name, but you're right about the impression the name ought to give. Maybe start_task()?

We can just document it as returning a Future.

I think it'd be better to document it as returning a Task? That way it's clear cancellation is still generally an option.

I had assumed it depended on the changes to vectorcall to pass through a bit indicating it's being awaited immediately. Is that change even needed once we have this? (Probably we resolved that already during discussions at PyCon, it's just so long ago I can't remember anything.)

That is an interesting question, and again I don't think I was around if that was discussed in detail. For this feature, that flag is not needed. If we want to add an optimization for the large body of existing code that uses asyncio.gather(), then it would help significantly. We are probably going to carry this feature forward in Cinder for a while at least as it'll likely take quite some time (years?) before we can fully migrate to the new TaskGroup API. I'd definitely like to know what your, or other members of the community feel about adding an optimization to help with the older/existing API.

Maybe start_task()?

Fine with me. Maybe we should discuss further once a PR is up.

I think it'd be better to document it as returning a Task? That way it's clear cancellation is still generally an option.

From a static type POV it's always a Future, not always a Task. If you want to cancel it you take your chances -- cancel() will return a bool telling you whether it worked. The docs should just explain the situation without lying.

I will wait for the PR (that you're hopefully working on?). I recommend using start_task() as the method name until we come up with something better.

From a static type POV it's always a Future, not always a Task.

Whoops, I just realized Future has a cancel() method. I mistakenly thought that was a feature of Task. Sorry for the confusion.

I will wait for the PR (that you're hopefully working on?)

We should have something up soon. Really wanted to get an issue open first for early feedback on the plan.

We had a fruitful discussion on this topic at the core dev sprint. @1st1 and @carljm were present (and others).

Yury recommends not adding a new API like proposed here, but instead solving this globally (per event loop). We can have an optional task factory that people can install using loop.set_task_factory(), and which does effectively what is being proposed here for all create_task() calls (not just for the TaskGroup method).

The new create_task() would do what you propose here (call coro.send(None) and analyze the outcome), and either create a Future and set its result (or exception), or create a Task from a coroutine and a yield_result. The latter operation could be done by an extension to the create_task() API and the Task constructor API -- if an optional keyword parameter yield_result=result is passed, the task constructor doesn't end by calling loop.call_soon(self.__step, context=self._context), but instead treats result as is done by __step, interpreting it as a future to be blocked on.

This requires an extension of the create_task() API, but that should be okay -- if you are using a loop whose create_task() doesn't yet support the yield_result keyword parameter, you just can't benefit from the new functionality yet. (I'm guessing the loop should advertise whether it supports this somehow.)

I'm working on a prototype implementation in #98137.

I'm hoping that one of the Instagram folks can work on this contribution? I don't have the bandwidth to finish up that PR -- it was just meant as a quick proof of concept of what we discussed at the sprint.

Yep, we'll pick that up! Just need to find a moment to look in more detail.

@jbower-fb Have you ever found the time to look into this more?

@gvanrossum I have not but I think @itamaro is going to pick this up. Sorry for the confusion, it was a bit unclear last year who was going to have time to do what.

Cool. Do I need to keep this PR open?

Cool. Do I need to keep this PR open?

already pulled that PR locally, so you can close it!

probably going to take me a bit to learn enough asyncio internals to get this working and tested

Let me know (e.g. by posting questions here) if you need any help!

GH-101613 has a working prototype. still much left to do. TODO items and additional discussion items on the draft PR (let me know if you prefer to keep the discussion on the issue).

isn't this going to cause issues with structured concurrency objects (those that use asyncio.current_task(), eg timeout and TaskGroup)?

eg in

async def some_task():
    async with asyncio.timeout(1):
        await asyncio.Event().wait() # never gets cancelled

here asyncio.timeout grabs the asyncio.current_task(), which would actually be some previous task

We anticipate code relying on any semantics which change between TaskGroup.create_task() and TaskGroup.enqueue() will be rare

opening a timeout or TaskGroup in the first step of an async function doesn't seem like a rare occurrence

isn't this going to cause issues with structured concurrency objects (those that use asyncio.current_task(), eg timeout and TaskGroup)?

yes, this is a real problem.

one possible solution is to modify asyncio.current_task to materialize a task on-demand for the current coroutine if it detects it's being called in the context of an eagerly executing coroutine (would require the eager task factory to set something on the loop to communicate this to current_task).

would that resolve the issue and be an acceptable solution?

Did you investigate why there was so much overhead in the first place? How much % change did setting coro to None helped?

Not in detail. I think at some point during development I found eager tasks were executing more slowly than I was expecting. When I compared with/without eager execution for the same benchmark I noticed GC routines popping up in Linux perf more in the eager case. Then I took an educated guess it was the coroutine and cleared it.

I just took another quick look at this for the async_tree benchmark from pyperformance and got these results:

• (Using C-accelerated asyncio) async_tree_none: Mean +- std dev: 658 ms +- 43 ms
• (With C version of eager execution as merged) async_tree_none: Mean +- std dev: 457 ms +- 36 ms
• (With C version of eager execution without clearing the coroutine) async_tree_none: Mean +- std dev: 547 ms +- 80 ms
  pyperf also includes a warning with this result:

WARNING: the benchmark result may be unstable
* the standard deviation (79.7 ms) is 15% of the mean (547 ms)
* the maximum (938 ms) is 71% greater than the mean (547 ms)

So, clearing the coroutine is a significant improvement.

The reason I asked what applications you had in mind for the coroutines of finished tasks is I did think about this a bit when I wrote the code. It occurred to me the main things someone might want would be specific/limited metadata about the coroutine, e.g. its (qual)name. These could be captured and stored explicitly by a Task with much less system impact. Keeping around completed coroutines and their completed frames seems a bit sketchy in general. It could cause unbounded amounts of data to avoid GC longer than expected.

From users POV, there is little difference if the task completed eagerly or blocked and was completed in multiple cycles, if you can inspect a task's coroutine which was completed in multiple cycles, then I expect the same to be for eager task. There should be little to no difference between the two if we want eager task to be easily useable.

Today eagerly completing tasks are an optional feature. The reason for this is they can cause subtle differences in behavior. I would argue that coroutines being cleared on task completion could be one of these differences and we can document it as such. After the feature has been in use publicly for a while we might get some idea of what people want zombie coroutines for and come up with a more efficient way of providing targeted functionality.

I just took another quick look at this for the async_tree benchmark from pyperformance and got these results:
(Using C-accelerated asyncio) async_tree_none: Mean +- std dev: 658 ms +- 43 ms
(With C version of eager execution as merged) async_tree_none: Mean +- std dev: 457 ms +- 36 ms
(With C version of eager execution without clearing the coroutine) async_tree_none: Mean +- std dev: 547 ms +- 80 ms
pyperf also includes a warning with this result:

The numbers are hard to trust considering that the stddev is 80ms as pyperf is correctly warning that the benchmark is so unstable but I take it.

Anyways since you feel so strongly about this I accept it but with proper documentation and that @gvanrossum agrees. I'll approve the PR and wait for Guido to approve.

I read through the documentation in the PR and I have no idea how is one expected to use create_eager_task_factory. Specifically it talks about using a custom task implementation as eager task factory, but there is no documentation how one is expected to create such a task implementation. After poking in the code, the task should accept eager_start: bool which defaults to false but this isn't documented. The new option kwarg isn't even documented for asyncio.Task.

I have proposed documentation improvements in itamaro@ac1ee82 (PR depends on gh-104251 first)

What’s left? Is there a what’s new entry?

What’s left? Is there a what’s new entry?

I think this is done now!
Yes, we added a what's new entry.