Develop Reference

Timeout and stop a Task

I have a console app,
{
StartThread();
//must be true, windows system wants to know it is started
return true;
}
I'm trying to create a safety timeout function for this Task. But the task keeps running...
The method DoSomething calls other async methods and awaits their result
Do anyone have an idea why my task don't stop? Maybe a good code example on what to do
public async void StartThread()
{
var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = tokenSource.Token;
try
{
var timeout = 1000;
Task task = new Task(() => DoSomething(token), token);
task.Start();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, token)) == task)
{
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
task.Dispose();
await task;
if (task.IsCompleted)
{
task.Dispose();
tokenSource.Cancel();
tokenSource.Dispose();
}
else
{
log.WriteToFile("Timeout_ ");
}
}
else
tokenSource.Cancel();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("--StartThread ...there is an exception----");
}
finally
{
Thread.Sleep(300000); // 5 minutter
StartThread();
}
}

While not create CancellationTokenSource from given timeout?
var timeout = 1000;
//DONE: don't forget to dispose CancellationTokenSource instance
using (var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource(timeout)) {
try {
var token = tokenSource.Token;
//TODO: May be you'll want to add .ConfigureAwait(false);
Task task = Task.Run(() => DoSomething(token), token);
await task;
// Completed
}
catch (TaskCanceledException) {
// Cancelled due to timeout
log.WriteToFile("Timeout_ ");
}
catch (Exception e) {
// Failed to complete due to e exception
Console.WriteLine("--StartThread ...there is an exception----");
//DONE: let's be nice and don't swallow the exception
throw;
}
}

You should hardly ever Dispose a Task, since iot is managed by C# internals and it is taken care of. Also, you Dispose way too eagerly, for example:
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
task.Dispose();
await task;
I do not think so you want still await task if it cancelled and disposed. I guess it will not work at all.
Also if you use async, do not mix blocking calls such as Thread.Sleep - that can lead to disaster...
After all, you use cancellation token with some delay task to imitate a timeout - that's OK, but why do put unnecessary code, when you have great API at hand. Just make use of special contructor of CancellationTokenSource:
public CancellationTokenSource (int millisecondsDelay);
Here's the docs

After a timeout you are setting the CancellationToken and then immediately sleeping the thread for 5 minutes. Thus DoSomething() never gets a chance to continue running and react to the token being cancelled.

How to determine CancellationTokenSource scope?

Instead of using conventional threading, I am using async/await to implement a long-running job that will be called from various scenarios such as Desktop/Web/Mobile.
This question is about design considerations when using CancellationTokenSource/CancellationToken objects. Consider the following code written in .NET Core 5:
System
System.Collections.Generic
System.Diagnostics
System.IO
System.Threading
System.Threading.Tasks
[STAThread]
private static async Task Main ()
{
using (var job = new Job())
//using (var source = new CancellationTokenSource())
{
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
job.OnJobProgress += (sender, e) => { Console.WriteLine (watch.Elapsed); };
Task.Run (async () => await job.StartAsync());
//Task.Run (async () => await job.StartAsync (source.Token));
do
{
await Task.Delay (100);
if ((Console.KeyAvailable) && (Console.ReadKey ().Key == ConsoleKey.Escape))
{
//source.Cancel();
await job.CancelAsync();
break;
}
}
while (job.Running);
}
}
public class Job : IDisposable
{
public EventHandler OnJobProgress;
private bool _Running = false;
private readonly object SyncRoot = new object();
private CancellationTokenSource CancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
public bool Running => this._Running;
public async Task StartAsync () => await this.StartAsync(CancellationToken.None);
public async Task StartAsync (CancellationToken cancellationToken) => await this.ProcessAsync(cancellationToken);
public void Cancel ()
{
this.CancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
do { Thread.Sleep (10); } while (this._Running);
}
public async Task CancelAsync ()
{
this.CancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
do { await Task.Delay (10); } while (this._Running);
}
private async Task ProcessAsync (CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
lock (this.SyncRoot)
{
if (this._Running) { return; }
else { this._Running = true; }
}
do
{
await Task.Delay (100);
this.OnJobProgress?.Invoke (this, new EventArgs());
}
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested);
lock (this.SyncRoot)
{
this._Running = false;
this.CancellationTokenSource?.Dispose();
this.CancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
}
}
public void Dispose () => this.Cancel();
}
Notice the three commented lines in the Main method as well as the Cancel and CancelAsync methods. My gut says that there should be a locking mechanism in place in the Cancel methods instead of the Process method. Depending on where the CancellationToken comes from, are there any potential deadlocks in this implementation? Somehow, I am not comfortable with the do/while blocking mechanism.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
AUXILIARY QUESTION: Since CancellationToken is a readonly struct and being passed around by value, how is it that calling Cancel on the CancellationTokenSource modifies the CancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested property? Perhaps that was the source of confusion all along.

This is a job for Task.WhenAny. Await the first job to complete from two: either the one you want to really want to complete or the one representing user's impatience by hitting the ESC key or appropriate mobile touch.
Pseudocode:
mainTask = Setup main task, take the token as input. That's it.
userInterruptTask = Setup user action monitoring task, and in it's continuation or as part of its natural loop's time to end (the ESC key), call Cancel. Note, in this loop, there is NO check against a boolean value; it just goes until it must cancel, and then is done via break/return; the other task goes to done if it is properly listening for cancellation.
So, when either task completes, you're done.
var ret = await Task.WhenAny(mainTask, userInterruptTask);
If it matters at this point, get the value of ret and act accordingly. Task.WhenAny returns
A task that represents the completion of one of the supplied tasks. The return task's Result is the task that completed.
For a specific answer to "what is the scope" of the token... its scope is everything that may act on it. Cancellation in TPL is 100% cooperative, so all tasks that care to set cancellation or look for cancellation are in play.
For your auxiliary question, I can understand your confusion. I hadn't thought of it before, myself, but the answer turns out to be simple. The implementation of that property delegates to the token source:
public bool IsCancellationRequested
=> _source != null && _source.IsCancellationRequested;
where the CancellationTokenSource is a stateful class.

Using Task.Delay within Task.Run

I have a Windows Service that monitors my application by running a couple of tests every second. A bug report has been submitted that said that the service stoppes running after a while, and I'm trying to figure out why.
I suspect that the code below is the culprit, but I have trouble understanding exactly how it works. The ContinueWith statement has recently been commented out, but I dont know if it is needed
private Task CreateTask(Action action)
{
var ct = _cts.Token;
return Task.Run(async () =>
{
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
var sw = new Stopwatch();
while (true)
{
sw.Restart();
action();
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
_logger.Debug("Cancellation requested");
break;
}
var wait = _settings.loopStepFrequency - sw.ElapsedMilliseconds;
if (wait <= 0) // No need to delay
continue;
// If ContinueWith is needed wrap this in an ugly try/catch
// handling the exception
await Task.Delay(
(int)(_settings.loopStepFrequency - sw.ElapsedMilliseconds),
ct); //.ContinueWith(tsk => { }, ct);
}
_logger.Debug("Task was cancelled");
}, _cts.Token);
}
Are there any obvious problems with this code?

Are there any obvious problems with this code?
The one that jumps out to me is the calculation for the number of milliseconds to delay. Specifically, there's no floor. If action() takes an unusually long time, then the task could fail in a possibly unexpected way.
There are several ways for the task to complete in either a cancelled or failed state, or it can delay forever:
The task can be cancelled before the delegate begins, due to the cancellation token passed to Task.Run.
The task can be cancelled by the ThrowIfCancellationRequested call.
The task can complete successfully after being cancelled, due to the IsCancellationRequested logic.
The task can be cancelled by the cancellation token passed to Task.Delay.
The task may fail with an ArgumentOutOfRangeException if _settings.loopStepFrequency - sw.ElapsedMilliseconds is less than -1. This is probably a bug.
The task may delay indefinitely (until cancelled) if _settings.loopStepFrequency - sw.ElapsedMilliseconds happens to be exactly -1. This is probably a bug.
To fix this code, I recommend two things:
The code is probably intending to do await Task.Delay((int) wait, ct); instead of await Task.Delay((int)(_settings.loopStepFrequency - sw.ElapsedMilliseconds), ct);. This will remove the last two conditions above.
Choose one method of cancellation. The standard pattern to express cancellation is via OperationCanceledExcpetion; this is the pattern used by ThrowIfCancellationRequested and by Task.Delay. The IsCancellationRequested check is using a different pattern; it will successfully complete the task on cancellation, instead of cancelling it.

There are so many problems with this code, that makes more sense to rewrite it than attempt to fix it. Here is a possible way to rewrite this method, with some (possibly superfluous) argument validation added:
private Task CreateTask(Action action)
{
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var ct = _cts.Token;
var delayMsec = _settings.loopStepFrequency;
if (delayMsec <= 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("loopStepFrequency");
return Task.Run(async () =>
{
while (true)
{
var delayTask = Task.Delay(delayMsec, ct);
action();
await delayTask;
}
}, ct);
}
The responsibility for logging a possible exception/cancellation belongs now to the caller of the method, that (hopefully) awaits the created task.
var task = CreateTask(TheAction);
try
{
await task; // If the caller is async
//task.GetAwaiter().GetResult(); // If the caller is sync
_logger.Info("The task completed successfully");
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
_logger.Info("The task was canceled");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.Error("The task failed", ex);
}

WPF: How to synchronize async loaded listviews

I have a question about the syncronisation between loading resources async and keeping the selected element to the correct loaded resource. To be pricise I have a listview with users and one panel with his profile. If I choose that user, the user is loaded from an webservice and after that his data are shown in that profile-panel. Loading a user can be a very expensive operation (time) so I tried so make that loading async to prevent to block the whole UI-thread. I wrote in the ItemChange-Event something like this->
ItemChangeEvent(){
Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>{
.. load profile from Server
this.Dispatcher.Invoke(.. some UI changes);
});
}
Now it sometimes happens, that the user I selected in that listview, is not the user which is shown on the profile. My guess is, that any of the task is delayed and pushed his content after the "correct" user-profile task is finished. So how can I achieve that the loading is async but syncronisation with the current-selected-item?

You could add a CancellationTokenSource in the outer scope, and store the CancellationToken in a local variable inside the event handler. Ideally this token should be passed and used by the method that fetches the profile from the remote server, to avoid having ongoing tasks fetching data that are no longer needed.
Also instead of using the awkward Dispatcher.Invoke for switching back to the UI thread, you could take advantage of the modern and neat async-await approach. The code after await continues automatically in the UI thread, without having to do anything special beyond adding the keyword async in the event handler:
private CancellationTokenSource _itemChangeTokenSource;
private async void ListView1_ItemChange(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_itemChangeTokenSource?.Cancel();
_itemChangeTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken token = _itemChangeTokenSource.Token;
var id = GetSelectedId(ListView1);
Profile profile;
try
{
profile = await Task.Run(() =>
{
return GetProfile(id, token); // Expensive operation
}, token);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
return; // Nothing to do, this event was canceled
}
UpdatePanel(profile);
}
It would be even more ideal if the expensive operation could become asynchronous. This way you would avoid blocking a ThreadPool thread every time the user clicked on the ListView control.
profile = await Task.Run(async () =>
{
return await GetProfileAsync(id, token); // Expensive asynchronous operation
}, token);
Update: I made an attempt to encapsulate the cancellation-related logic inside a class, so that the same functionality can be achieved with fewer lines of code. It may be tempting to reduce this code in case it is repeated multiple times in the same window, or in multiple windows. The class is named CancelableExecution, and has a single method Run which accepts the cancelable operation in the form of a Func<CancellationToken, T> parameter.
Here is a usage example of this class:
private CancelableExecution _updatePanelCancelableExecution = new CancelableExecution();
private async void ListView1_ItemChange(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var id = GetSelectedId(ListView1);
if (await _updatePanelCancelableExecution.Run(cancellationToken =>
{
return GetProfile(id, cancellationToken); // Expensive operation
}, out var profile))
{
UpdatePanel(await profile);
}
}
The Run method returns a Task<bool>, that has the value true if the operation was completed successfully (not canceled). The result of a successful operation is available via an out Task<T> parameter. This API makes for less code, but also for less readable code, so use this class with caution!
public class CancelableExecution
{
private CancellationTokenSource _activeTokenSource;
public Task<bool> RunAsync<T>(Func<CancellationToken, Task<T>> function,
out Task<T> result)
{
var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = tokenSource.Token;
var resultTcs = new TaskCompletionSource<T>(
TaskCreationOptions.RunContinuationsAsynchronously);
result = resultTcs.Task;
return ((Func<Task<bool>>)(async () =>
{
try
{
var oldTokenSource = Interlocked.Exchange(ref _activeTokenSource,
tokenSource);
if (oldTokenSource != null)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
oldTokenSource.Cancel(); // Potentially expensive
}).ConfigureAwait(false);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
var task = function(token);
var result = await task.ConfigureAwait(false);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
resultTcs.SetResult(result);
return true;
}
catch (OperationCanceledException ex) when (ex.CancellationToken == token)
{
resultTcs.SetCanceled();
return false;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
resultTcs.SetException(ex);
throw;
}
finally
{
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(
ref _activeTokenSource, null, tokenSource) == tokenSource)
{
tokenSource.Dispose();
}
}
}))();
}
public Task<bool> RunAsync<T>(Func<Task<T>> function, out Task<T> result)
{
return RunAsync(ct => function(), out result);
}
public Task<bool> Run<T>(Func<CancellationToken, T> function, out Task<T> result)
{
return RunAsync(ct => Task.Run(() => function(ct), ct), out result);
}
public Task<bool> Run<T>(Func<T> function, out Task<T> result)
{
return RunAsync(ct => Task.Run(() => function(), ct), out result);
}
}

I'd suggest you use CancellationToken to cancel previous load task once other user is selected. This can be achieved in few steps:
Create instance field CancellationTokenSource _tokenSource
change your handler:
ItemChangeEvent(){
// first, try to cancel previous event
_tokenSource?.Cancel();
// then, update token source; previous object will be collected eventually
_tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
// finally, add cancellation token from token source to task creation
Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>{
.. load profile from Server
this.Dispatcher.Invoke(.. some UI changes);
}, _tokenSource.Token);
}

Do multiple awaits to the same Task from a single thread resume in FIFO order?

Supposing a Task is created and awaited multiple times from a single thread. Is the resume order FIFO?
Simplistic example: Is the Debug.Assert() really an invariant?
Task _longRunningTask;
async void ButtonStartSomething_Click()
{
// Wait for any previous runs to complete before starting the next
if (_longRunningTask != null) await _longRunningTask;
// Check our invariant
Debug.Assert(_longRunningTask == null, "This assumes awaits resume in FIFO order");
// Initialize
_longRunningTask = Task.Delay(10000);
// Yield and wait for completion
await _longRunningTask;
// Clean up
_longRunningTask = null;
}
Initialize and Clean up are kept to a bare minimum for the sake of simplicity, but the general idea is that the previous Clean up MUST be complete before the next Initialize runs.

The short answer is: no, it's not guaranteed.
Furthermore, you should not use ContinueWith; among other problems, it has a confusing default scheduler (more details on my blog). You should use await instead:
private async void ButtonStartSomething_Click()
{
// Wait for any previous runs to complete before starting the next
if (_longRunningTask != null) await _longRunningTask;
_longRunningTask = LongRunningTaskAsync();
await _longRunningTask;
}
private async Task LongRunningTaskAsync()
{
// Initialize
await Task.Delay(10000);
// Clean up
_longRunningTask = null;
}
Note that this could still have "interesting" semantics if the button can be clicked many times while the tasks are still running.
The standard way to prevent the multiple-execution problem for UI applications is to disable the button:
private async void ButtonStartSomething_Click()
{
ButtonStartSomething.Enabled = false;
await LongRunningTaskAsync();
ButtonStartSomething.Enabled = true;
}
private async Task LongRunningTaskAsync()
{
// Initialize
await Task.Delay(10000);
// Clean up
}
This forces your users into a one-operation-at-a-time queue.

The order of execution is pre-defined, however there is potential race condition on _longRunningTask variable if ButtonStartSomething_Click() is called concurrently from more than one thread (not likely the case).
Alternatively, you can explicitly schedule tasks using a queue. As a bonus a work can be scheduled from non-async methods, too:
void ButtonStartSomething_Click()
{
_scheduler.Add(async() =>
{
// Do something
await Task.Delay(10000);
// Do something else
});
}
Scheduler _scheduler;
class Scheduler
{
public Scheduler()
{
_queue = new ConcurrentQueue<Func<Task>>();
_state = STATE_IDLE;
}
public void Add(Func<Task> func)
{
_queue.Enqueue(func);
ScheduleIfNeeded();
}
public Task Completion
{
get
{
var t = _messageLoopTask;
if (t != null)
{
return t;
}
else
{
return Task.FromResult<bool>(true);
}
}
}
void ScheduleIfNeeded()
{
if (_queue.IsEmpty)
{
return;
}
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _state, STATE_RUNNING, STATE_IDLE) == STATE_IDLE)
{
_messageLoopTask = Task.Run(new Func<Task>(RunMessageLoop));
}
}
async Task RunMessageLoop()
{
Func<Task> item;
while (_queue.TryDequeue(out item))
{
await item();
}
var oldState = Interlocked.Exchange(ref _state, STATE_IDLE);
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert(oldState == STATE_RUNNING);
if (!_queue.IsEmpty)
{
ScheduleIfNeeded();
}
}
volatile Task _messageLoopTask;
ConcurrentQueue<Func<Task>> _queue;
static int _state;
const int STATE_IDLE = 0;
const int STATE_RUNNING = 1;
}

Found the answer under Task.ContinueWith(). It appear to be: no
Presuming await is just Task.ContinueWith() under the hood, there's documentation for TaskContinuationOptions.PreferFairness that reads:
A hint to a TaskScheduler to schedule task in the order in which they were scheduled, so that tasks scheduled sooner are more likely to run sooner, and tasks scheduled later are more likely to run later.
(bold-facing added)
This suggests there's no guarantee of any sorts, inherent or otherwise.
Correct ways to do this
For the sake of someone like me (OP), here's a look at the more correct ways to do this.
Based on Stephen Cleary's answer:
private async void ButtonStartSomething_Click()
{
// Wait for any previous runs to complete before starting the next
if (_longRunningTask != null) await _longRunningTask;
// Initialize
_longRunningTask = ((Func<Task>)(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(10);
// Clean up
_longRunningTask = null;
}))();
// Yield and wait for completion
await _longRunningTask;
}
Suggested by Raymond Chen's comment:
private async void ButtonStartSomething_Click()
{
// Wait for any previous runs to complete before starting the next
if (_longRunningTask != null) await _longRunningTask;
// Initialize
_longRunningTask = Task.Delay(10000)
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
// Clean up
_longRunningTask = null;
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
// Yield and wait for completion
await _longRunningTask;
}
Suggested by Kirill Shlenskiy's comment:
readonly SemaphoreSlim _taskSemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
async void ButtonStartSomething_Click()
{
// Wait for any previous runs to complete before starting the next
await _taskSemaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
// Do some initialization here
// Yield and wait for completion
await Task.Delay(10000);
// Do any clean up here
}
finally
{
_taskSemaphore.Release();
}
}
(Please -1 or comment if I've messed something up in either.)
Handling exceptions
Using continuations made me realize one thing: awaiting at multiple places gets complicated really quickly if _longRunningTask can throw exceptions.
If I'm going to use continuations, it looks like I need to top it off by handling all exceptions within the continuation as well.
i.e.
_longRunningTask = Task.Delay(10000)
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
// Clean up
_longRunningTask = null;
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
// Consume or handle exceptions here
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
// Yield and wait for completion
await _longRunningTask;
If I use a SemaphoreSlim, I can do the same thing in the try-catch, and have the added option of bubbling exceptions directly out of ButtonStartSomething_Click.