Skip to content
34 changes: 23 additions & 11 deletions Doc/howto/a-conceptual-overview-of-asyncio.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -42,11 +42,11 @@ Event Loop
==========

Everything in :mod:`!asyncio` happens relative to the event loop.
It's the star of the show.
It's the star of the show, but prefers to work behind the scenes managing
and coordinating resources.
It's like an orchestra conductor.
It's behind the scenes managing resources.
Some power is explicitly granted to it, but a lot of its ability to get things
done comes from the respect and cooperation of its worker bees.
done comes from the respect and cooperation of its band members.

In more technical terms, the event loop contains a collection of jobs to be run.
Some jobs are added directly by you, and some indirectly by :mod:`!asyncio`.
Expand All @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ This process repeats indefinitely with the event loop cycling endlessly
onwards.
If there are no more jobs pending execution, the event loop is smart enough to
rest and avoid needlessly wasting CPU cycles, and will come back when there's
more work to be done.
more work to be done - such as when I/O operations complete or timers expire.

Effective execution relies on jobs sharing well and cooperating; a greedy job
could hog control and leave the other jobs to starve, rendering the overall
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -171,14 +171,15 @@ Roughly speaking, :ref:`tasks <asyncio-task-obj>` are coroutines (not coroutine
functions) tied to an event loop.
A task also maintains a list of callback functions whose importance will become
clear in a moment when we discuss :keyword:`await`.
The recommended way to create tasks is via :func:`asyncio.create_task`.

Creating a task automatically schedules it for execution (by adding a
callback to run it in the event loop's to-do list, that is, collection of jobs).
The recommended way to create tasks is via :func:`asyncio.create_task`.

Since there's only one event loop (in each thread), :mod:`!asyncio` takes care of
associating the task with the event loop for you. As such, there's no need
to specify the event loop.
Since there's only one event loop (per thread; in thread-local storage),
:mod:`!asyncio` takes care of associating the task with the event loop for
you.
As such, there's no need to specify the event loop.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
As such, there's no need to specify the event loop.
As such, there's no need to specify the event loop when calling ``asyncio``.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@anordin95 anordin95 Sep 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's a bit redundant to mention asyncio again given the prior sentence also does.


::

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -251,6 +252,10 @@ different ways::
In a crucial way, the behavior of ``await`` depends on the type of object
being awaited.

^^^^^^^^^^
await task
^^^^^^^^^^

Awaiting a task will cede control from the current task or coroutine to
the event loop.
In the process of relinquishing control, a few important things happen.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -282,6 +287,10 @@ This is a basic, yet reliable mental model.
In practice, the control handoffs are slightly more complex, but not by much.
In part 2, we'll walk through the details that make this possible.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
await coroutine
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**Unlike tasks, awaiting a coroutine does not hand control back to the event
loop!**
Wrapping a coroutine in a task first, then awaiting that would cede
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -348,8 +357,10 @@ The design intentionally trades off some conceptual clarity around usage of
``await`` for improved performance.
Each time a task is awaited, control needs to be passed all the way up the
call stack to the event loop.
That might sound minor, but in a large program with many ``await``'s and a deep
callstack that overhead can add up to a meaningful performance drag.
Then, the event loop needs to manage its data structures and work through
its processing logic to resume the next job.
That might sound minor, but in a large program with many ``await``'s that
overhead can add up to a meaningful performance drag.
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 "meaningful" has a positive connotation here, which we don't want. How about this?

Suggested change
overhead can add up to a meaningful performance drag.
overhead can add up to a major performance drag.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to make sure I understand, the concern is that "meaningful" has a positive connotation, which may confuse a reader into thinking we're saying a "performance drag" is a good thing, yeah?

I think "major" would be overstating the effect. The goal was to describe something that's non-trivial or non-negligible. For what it's worth, I think "meaningful" can be used either way e.g. "a meaningful decline in sales", "a meaningful improvement in test scores", etc. Regardless, would switching to "non-trivial" be amenable?


------------------------------------------------
A conceptual overview part 2: the nuts and bolts
Expand All @@ -365,7 +376,8 @@ and how to make your own asynchronous operators.
The inner workings of coroutines
================================

:mod:`!asyncio` leverages four components to pass around control.
:mod:`!asyncio` leverages four components of the Python language to pass
around control.

:meth:`coroutine.send(arg) <generator.send>` is the method used to start or
resume a coroutine.
Expand Down
Loading