Scheduling a coroutine with a context - c++

Question

There are plenty of tutorials that explain how it's easy to use coroutines in C++, but I've spent a lot of time getting how to schedule "detached" coroutines.
Assume, I have the following definition of coroutine result type:
struct task {
struct promise_type {
auto initial_suspend() const noexcept { return std::suspend_never{}; }
auto final_suspend() const noexcept { return std::suspend_never{}; }
void return_void() const noexcept { }
void unhandled_exception() const { std::terminate(); }
task get_return_object() const noexcept { return {}; }
};
};
And there is also a method that runs "detached" coroutine, i.e. runs it asynchronously.
/// Handler should have overloaded operator() returning task.
template<class Handler>
void schedule_coroutine(Handler &&handler) {
std::thread([handler = std::forward<Handler>(handler)]() { handler(); }).detach();
}
Obviously, I can not pass lambda-functions or any other functional object that has a state into this method, because once the coroutine is suspended, the lambda passed into std::thread method will be destroyed with all the captured variables.
task coroutine_1() {
std::vector<object> objects;
// ...
schedule_coroutine([objects]() -> task {
// ...
co_await something;
// ...
co_return;
});
// ...
co_return;
}
int main() {
// ...
schedule_coroutine(coroutine_1);
// ...
}
I think there is should be a way to save the handler somehow (preferably near or within the coroutine promise) so that the next time coroutine is resumed it won't try to access to the destroyed object data. But unfortunately I have no idea how to do it.

Answer 1

I think your problem is a general (and common) misunderstanding of how co_await coroutines are intended to work.
When a function performs co_await <expr>, this (generally) means that the function suspends execution until expr resumes its execution. That is, your function is waiting until some process completes (and typically returns a value). That process, represented by expr, is the one who is supposed to resume the function (generally).
The whole point of this is to make code that executes asynchronously look like synchronous code as much as possible. In synchronous code, you would do something like <expr>.wait(), where wait is a function that waits for the task represented by expr to complete. Instead of "waiting" on it, you "a-wait" or "asynchronously wait" on it. The rest of your function executes asynchronously relative to your caller, based on when expr completes and how it decides to resume your function's execution. In this way, co_await <expr> looks and appears to act very much like <expr>.wait().
Compiler Magictm then goes in behind the scenes to make it asynchronous.
So the idea of launching a "detached coroutine" doesn't make sense within this framework. The caller of a coroutine function (usually) isn't the one who determines where the coroutine executes; it's the processes the coroutine invokes during its execution that decides that.
Your schedule_coroutine function really ought to just be a regular "execute a function asynchronously" operation. It shouldn't have any particular association with coroutines, nor any expectation that the given functor is or represents some asynchronous task or if it happens to invoke co_await. The function is just going to create a new thread and execute a function on it.
Just as you would have done pre-C++20.
If your task type represents an asynchronous task, then in proper RAII style, its destructor ought to wait until the task is completed before exiting (this includes any resumptions of coroutines scheduled by that task, throughout the entire execution of said task. The task isn't done until it is entirely done). Therefore, if handler() in your schedule_coroutine call returns a task, then that task will be initialized and immediately destroyed. Since the destructor waits for the asynchronous task to complete, the thread will not die until the task is done. And since the thread's functor is copied/moved from the function object given to the thread constructor, any captures will continue to exist until the thread itself exits.

Answer 2

I hope I got you right, but I think there might be a couple of misconceptions here. First off, you clearly cannot detach a coroutine, that would not make any sense at all. But you can execute asynchronous tasks inside a coroutine for sure, even though in my opinion this defeats its purpose entirely.
But let's take a look at the second block of code you posted. Here you invoke std::async and forward a handler to it. Now, in order to prevent any kind of early destruction you should use std::move instead and pass the handler to the lambda so it will be kept alive for as long as the scope of the lambda function is valid. This should probably already answer your final question as well, because the place where you want this handler to be stored would be the lambda capture itself.
Another thing that bothers me is the usage of std::async. The call will return a std::future-kind of type that will block until the lambda has been executed. But this will only happen if you set the launch type to std::launch::async, otherwise you will need to call .get() or .wait() on the future as the default launch type is std::launch::deferred and this will only lazy fire (meaning: when you actually request the result).
So, in your case and if you really wanted to use coroutines that way, I would suggest to use a std::thread instead and store it for a later join() somewhere pseudo-globally. But again, I don't think you would really want to use coroutines mechanics that way.

Answer 3

Your question makes perfect sense, the misunderstanding is C++20 coroutines are actually generators mistakenly occupying coroutine header name.
Let me explain how generators work and then answer how to schedule detached coroutine.
How generators work
Your question Scheduling a detached coroutine then looks How to schedule a detached generator and answer is: not possible because special convention transforms regular function into generator function.
What is not obvious right there is the yielding a value must take place inside generator function body. When you want to call a helper function that yields value for you - you can't. Instead you also make a helper function into generator and then await instead of just calling helper function. This effectively chains generators and might feel like writing synchronous code that executes async.
In Javascript special convention is async keyword. In Python special convention is yield instead of return keyword.
The C++20 coroutines are low level mechanism allowing to implement Javascipt like async/await.
Nothing wrong with including this low-level mechanism in C++ language except placing it in header named coroutine.
How to schedule detached coroutine
This question makes sense if you want to have green threads or fibers and you are writing scheduler logic that uses symmetric or asymmetric coroutines to accomplish this.
Now others might ask: why should anyone bother with fibers(not windows fibers;) when you have generators? The answer is because you can have encapsulated concurrency and parallelism logic, meaning rest of your team isn't required to learn and apply additional mental gymnastics while working on the project.
The result is true asynchronous programming where the rest of the team write linear code, without callbacks and such, with simple concept of concurrency for example single spawn() library function, avoiding any locks/mutexes and other multithreading complexity.
The beauty of encapsulation is seen when all details are hidden in low level i/o methods. All context switching, scheduling, etc. happens deep inside i/o classes like Channel, Queue or File.
Everyone involved in async programming should experience working like this. The feeling is intense.
To accomplish this instead of C++20 coroutines use Boost::fiber that includes scheduler or Boost::context that allows symmetric coroutines. Symmetric coroutines allow to suspend and switch to any other coroutine while asymmetric coroutines suspend and resume calling coroutine.