ValueTask

回答1

From the API docs (emphasis added):

Methods may return an instance of this value type when it's likely that the result of their operations will be available synchronously and when the method is expected to be invoked so frequently that the cost of allocating a new Task<TResult> for each call will be prohibitive.

There are tradeoffs to using a ValueTask<TResult> instead of a Task<TResult>. For example, while a ValueTask<TResult> can help avoid an allocation in the case where the successful result is available synchronously, it also contains two fields whereas a Task<TResult> as a reference type is a single field. This means that a method call ends up returning two fields worth of data instead of one, which is more data to copy. It also means that if a method that returns one of these is awaited within an async method, the state machine for that async method will be larger due to needing to store the struct that's two fields instead of a single reference.

Further, for uses other than consuming the result of an asynchronous operation via await, ValueTask<TResult> can lead to a more convoluted programming model, which can in turn actually lead to more allocations. For example, consider a method that could return either a Task<TResult> with a cached task as a common result or a ValueTask<TResult>. If the consumer of the result wants to use it as a Task<TResult>, such as to use with in methods like Task.WhenAll and Task.WhenAny, the ValueTask<TResult> would first need to be converted into a Task<TResult> using AsTask, which leads to an allocation that would have been avoided if a cached Task<TResult> had been used in the first place.

As such, the default choice for any asynchronous method should be to return a Task or Task<TResult>. Only if performance analysis proves it worthwhile should a ValueTask<TResult> be used instead of Task<TResult>.

回答2

However I still do not understand what is the problem with using ValueTask always

Struct types are not free. Copying structs that are larger than the size of a reference can be slower than copying a reference. Storing structs that are larger than a reference takes more memory than storing a reference. Structs that are larger than 64 bits might not be enregistered when a reference could be enregistered. The benefits of lower collection pressure may not exceed the costs.

Performance problems should be approached with an engineering discipline工程规范. Make goals, measure your progress against goals, and then decide how to modify the program if goals are not met, measuring along the way to make sure that your changes are actually improvements.

why async/await wasn't built with a value type from the start.

await was added to C# long after the Task<T> type already existed. It would have been somewhat perverse有悖常理的 to invent a new type when one already existed. And await went through a great many design iterations before settling on the one that was shipped in 2012. The perfect is the enemy of the good; better to ship a solution that works well with the existing infrastructure and then if there is user demand, provide improvements later.

I note also that the new feature of allowing user-supplied types to be the output of a compiler-generated method adds considerable risk and testing burden. When the only things you can return are void or a task, the testing team does not have to consider any scenario in which some absolutely crazy type is returned. Testing a compiler means figuring out not just what programs people are likely to write, but what programs are possible to write, because we want the compiler to compile all legal programs, not just all sensible programs. That's expensive.

Can someone explain when ValueTask would fail to do the job?

The purpose of the thing is improved performance. It doesn't do the job if it doesn't measurably and significantly improve performance. There is no guarantee that it will.

ValueTask

Why would one use Task<T> over ValueTask<T> in C#?