I have the following code that runs on .NET Standard 2.0:
public static Task<JobResult> TryRunAsync(this IJob job,
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default(CancellationToken))
{
return job.RunAsync(cancellationToken)
.ContinueWith(t => {
if (t.IsFaulted)
return JobResult.FromException(t.Exception.InnerException);
if (t.IsCanceled)
return JobResult.Cancelled;
return t.Result;
});
}
And we noticed it wasn't running as expected. We thought that when you awaited the call to TryRun it would always call the continuation which could handle the exception/cancellation and return a job result. We were hoping to reduce the amount of async state machines created... However, this is not the case it just blows up. Here is a smaller sample (create a new .net core 2.0 console app and paste the following:
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApp4
{
public class Program
{
public static async Task Main()
{
// works
await DoStuff();
Console.ReadKey();
// blows up
await TryRun();
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static Task DoStuff()
{
return Method()
.ContinueWith(t => Throws())
.ContinueWith(t => {
if (t.IsFaulted)
Console.WriteLine("Faulted");
else if (t.IsCompletedSuccessfully)
Console.WriteLine("Success");
});
}
public static Task Method()
{
Console.WriteLine("Method");
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
public static Task TryRun()
{
return Throws()
.ContinueWith(t => {
if (t.IsFaulted)
Console.WriteLine("Faulted");
else if (t.IsCompletedSuccessfully)
Console.WriteLine("Success");
});
}
public static Task Throws()
{
Console.WriteLine("Throws");
throw new ApplicationException("Grr");
}
}
}
You may need <LangVersion>Latest</LangVersion> In your csproj.
UPDATE
We ended up going with the following code:
public static Task<JobResult> TryRunAsync(this IJob job,
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default(CancellationToken))
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<JobResult>(null);
try {
var task = job.RunAsync(cancellationToken);
task.ContinueWith((task2, state2) => {
var tcs2 = (TaskCompletionSource<object>)state2;
if (task2.IsCanceled) {
tcs2.SetResult(JobResult.Cancelled);
} else if (task2.IsFaulted) {
tcs2.SetResult(JobResult.FromException(task2.Exception));
} else {
tcs2.SetResult(JobResult.Success);
}
}, tcs, cancellationToken);
} catch (Exception ex) {
tcs.SetResult(JobResult.FromException(ex));
}
return tcs.Task;
}
The method throws is actually throwing an exception when called, not returning a faulted Task. There is no Task for you to add a continuation to; it's simply going up the call stack before even reaching the ContinueWith call.
Indeed there is no task created here. For instance if you did a loop you would stay on the same thread and same stack. You could see the correct behaviour by doing a Task.FromException in the Throws method rather than throwing. Also in core 2.1 at least you might find that an async method will be just as fast or even faster than the continuation version and less allocaty. Worth checking your trace numbers before trying to optimise away the state machine. Also if you are throwing exceptions your state machine is definitely the least of your perf concerns.
Related
I'm wondering how I can let this code fall in the catch of PassThrough?
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public class Program
{
public static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
await PassThrough(Test());
} catch (Exception) {
Console.WriteLine("caught at invocation");
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static async Task PassThrough(Task<bool> test)
{
try
{
var result = await test.ConfigureAwait(false);
// still need to do something with result here...
}
catch
{
Console.WriteLine("never caught... :(");
}
}
/// external code!
public static Task<bool> Test()
{
throw new Exception("something bad");
// do other async stuff here
// ...
return Task.FromResult(true);
}
}
fiddle
The external code should return handle the error path and return Task.FromException? Pass a Func<Task<bool>>?
My recommendation would be to change your PassThrough method to take a Func<Task<bool>> instead of a Task<bool>. This way, you can capture exceptions arising both from the synchronous part of your Test method, as well as the asynchronous task it launches. An added advantage is that asynchronous methods (defined using async and await) can be directly cast to Func<Task> or Func<Task<TResult>>.
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public class Program
{
public static async Task Main()
{
try
{
await PassThrough(Test);
// Note that we are now passing in a function delegate for Test,
// equivalent to () => Test(), not its result.
}
catch (Exception)
{
Console.WriteLine("caught at invocation");
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static async Task PassThrough(Func<Task<bool>> test)
{
try
{
var task = test(); // exception thrown here
var result = await task.ConfigureAwait(false);
// still need to do something with result here...
}
catch
{
Console.WriteLine("caught in PassThrough");
}
}
/// external code!
public static Task<bool> Test()
{
throw new Exception("something bad");
// do other async stuff here
// ...
return Task.FromResult(true);
}
}
Adding to Douglas's answer.
Only catch exceptions if you are able to do something meaningful with them and you can manage them at that level.
Task.FromException basically just places the exception on a task which you would usually return. However, in this case the Async Await Pattern already does this for you. i.e If you just let it fail, the exception will get placed on the task anyway, so there seems no real reason from your code to catch anything.
The only pertinent place you have to think about catching exceptions is in async void as they run unobserved and can cause issues when an exception is thrown
In the following line you are awaiting the PassThrough, not the Test.
await PassThrough(Test());
You could await both if you wanted:
await PassThrough(await Test()); // also need to change the signature of PassThrough from Task<bool> to bool.
...but in both cases the Test will be invoked first. And since it throws an exception, the PassThrough will never be invoked. This is the reason you don't see the "caught in PassThrough" message. The execution never enters this method.
I have a console application in which I need to retrieve some data from 4 different sites. I placed each HTTP request in a task and I wait for them all to complete.
It was working when I only had to get data from 2 sites. but then I needed to add other sources of data and when adding 3 or more requests, the Task.WaitAll() hangs.
Below is my code.
The reason I ended up using Task.WaitAll() was because I need to stop and prevent the console application from exiting - i.e. I need to perform other tasks only after all the HTTP requests come back with data.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.IO;
using System.Linq;
using System.Net;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
class Program
{
static Task[] tasks = new Task[3];
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Run();
}
catch (System.Exception ex)
{
}
}
public static async void Run()
{
//works when using one or two tasks
tasks[0] = HttpExtensions.GetMyData("http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/iso_8859-1.txt");
tasks[1] = HttpExtensions.GetMyData("http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/iso_8859-1.txt");
//fails when add 3 or more task
tasks[2] = HttpExtensions.GetMyData("http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/iso_8859-1.txt");
//tasks[3] = HttpExtensions.GetMyData("http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/iso_8859-1.txt");
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
var result4 = ((Task<Stream>)tasks[2]).Result;
}
}
public static class HttpExtensions
{
public static Stopwatch sw;
public static long http_ticks = 0;
public static Task<HttpWebResponse> GetResponseAsync(this HttpWebRequest request)
{
var taskComplete = new TaskCompletionSource<HttpWebResponse>();
request.BeginGetResponse(asyncResponse =>
{
try
{
HttpWebRequest responseRequest = (HttpWebRequest)asyncResponse.AsyncState;
HttpWebResponse someResponse = (HttpWebResponse)responseRequest.EndGetResponse(asyncResponse);
taskComplete.TrySetResult(someResponse);
}
catch (WebException webExc)
{
HttpWebResponse failedResponse = (HttpWebResponse)webExc.Response;
taskComplete.TrySetResult(failedResponse);
}
}, request);
return taskComplete.Task;
}
public static async Task<Stream> GetMyData(string urlToCall)
{
HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(urlToCall);
request.Method = HttpMethod.Get;
HttpWebResponse response = (HttpWebResponse)await request.GetResponseAsync();
//using (var sr = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream()))
//{
return response.GetResponseStream();
//}
}
}
public static class HttpMethod
{
public static string Head { get { return "HEAD"; } }
public static string Post { get { return "POST"; } }
public static string Put { get { return "PUT"; } }
public static string Get { get { return "GET"; } }
public static string Delete { get { return "DELETE"; } }
public static string Trace { get { return "TRACE"; } }
public static string Options { get { return "OPTIONS"; } }
public static string Connect { get { return "CONNECT"; } }
public static string Patch { get { return "PATCH"; } }
}
}
There a number of concerns.
First, as I mentioned in the comments above, by not returning a Task you are more or less hanging your application since it can't tell when the Task is completed.
However, once you change the Run() method to return a task, you need to invoke it via a Task.Run call in your Main method.
Second, you are over-complicating your code by using WebClient. Switch to HttpClient and take advantage of its natural async/await API.
Third, you aren't actually awaiting anything in your Run() method so changing it to a task does nothing since you aren't awaiting a result which will cause it to run synchronously (no pun intended). Update your method to await a result.
Finally, WaitAll blocks the thread, which may not be what you want. You can use WhenAll instead and await that call, allowing your application to release the thread while your tasks run.
Below is a complete, working example of my recommended modifications, simplified to show a working program. The Main method recommendation is taken from https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/fe9acdfc-66cd-4b43-9460-a8053ca51885/using-new-asyncawait-in-console-app?forum=netfxbcl
class Program
{
static Task[] tasks = new Task[3];
static HttpClient _client = new HttpClient();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Main start");
Task t = Run();
t.ContinueWith((str) =>
{
Console.WriteLine(str.Status.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("Main end");
});
t.Wait();
}
public static async Task Run()
{
tasks[0] = GetMyData("http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/iso_8859-1.txt");
tasks[1] = GetMyData("http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/iso_8859-1.txt");
tasks[2] = GetMyData("http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/iso_8859-1.txt");
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
var result4 = (await (Task<Stream>)tasks[2]);
}
public static async Task<Stream> GetMyData(string urlToCall)
{
return await _client.GetStreamAsync(urlToCall);
}
}
I think the issue is more of understanding Task and async await; and I may be wrong so apologies up front.
Task is a managed thread that goes into a thread pool. Task has a Task.Result of Type T.
You can create a Task and then Start it and then Wait it. (Never a good idea to start and then immediately wait a task but for understanding...)
var task = new Task(() => DoWork());
task.Start();
task.Wait();
The task will perform the DoWork() method in a new thread.
The calling thread will BLOCK at task.Wait();
You can also give a Task a ContinueWith Action that will perform the remaining work on the calling thread.
var task = new Task(() => DoWorkOnNewThread());
task.ContinueWith(() => MainThreadWork());
task.Start(); //Notice no more task.Wait();
So, if you're following that little bit then you can sort of use async await correctly.
The async keyword tells the compiler to wrap all remaing code AFTER reaching the await keyword WHERE A GetAwaiter() is returned. This is important because until you actually create a task (preferably started also) and return it then you have no GetAwaiter();
private Task DoWorkAsync()
{
var task = new Task(() => DoWork());
task.Start();
return task;
}
private async void Method()
{
//Main thread code...
await DoWorkAsync(); //Returns to whoever called Method()
//More main thread code to be QUEUED to run AFTER DoWorkAsync is complete.
//This portion of code, when compiled, is essentially wrapped in the ContinueWith(...
}
So if you're still following along then here's the kicker. You're on the same thread UNTIL you return a GetAwaiter() which is only found in a Task. If the Task has never started then you'll await that Task forever technically. So here's some comments showing the thread transitions.
private Task DoWorkAsync()
{
Debug.WriteLine("Still on main thread")
var task = new Task(() =>
{
Debug.WriteLine("On background thread");
});
task.Start(); //On main thread.
return task; //On main thread.
}
private async void Method()
{
Debug.WriteLine("On main thread");
await DoWorkAsync(); //returns to caller after DoWorkAsync returns Task
Debug.WriteLine("Back on main thread"); //Works here after the task DoWorkAsync returned is complete
}
An easier way to return the task running is to return Task.Run(() => DoWork()); If you look at the return value of Run it is Task and that task has already been started.
Forgive me if this isn't what you wanted but I felt like there is more of a confusion about using async await correctly than there is confusion about your code. I may be wrong but I felt that if you could understand more about the Task itself and how async await works you would see your issue. If this isn't what you're looking for I'll delete the answer.
Supposed you have 2 async method define as bellow:
public async Task<TResult> SomeMethod1()
{
throw new Exception();
}
public async Task<TResult> SomeMethod2()
{
await Task.Delay(50);
throw new Exception();
}
Now if you await on those 2 methods the behavior will be pretty much the same. But if you are getting the task the behavior is different.
If I want to cache the result of such a computation but only when the task run to completion.
I have to take care of the 2 situation:
First Situation:
public Task<TResult> CachingThis1(Func<Task<TResult>> doSomthing1)
{
try
{
var futur = doSomthing1()
futur.ContinueWith(
t =>
{
// ... Add To my cache
},
TaskContinuationOptions.NotOnFaulted);
}
catch ()
{
// ... Remove from the pending cache
throw;
}
}
Second Situation
public Task<TResult> CachingThis2(Func<Task<TResult>> doSomthing)
{
var futur = SomeMethod2();
futur.ContinueWith(
t =>
{
// ... Add To my cache
},
TaskContinuationOptions.NotOnFaulted);
futur.ContinueWith(
t =>
{
// ... Remove from the pending cache
},
TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
Now I pass to my caching system the method that will execute the computation to cache.
cachingSystem.CachingThis1(SomeMethod1);
cachingSystem.CachingThis2(SomeMethod2);
Clearly I need to duplicate code in the "ConinueWith on faulted" and the catch block.
Do you know if there is a way to make the exception behave the same whether it is before or after an await?
There's no difference in the exception handling required for both SomeMethod1 and SomeMethod2. They run exactly the same way and the exception would be stored in the returned task.
This can easily be seen in this example;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
var task = SomeMethod1();
}
catch
{
// Unreachable code
}
}
public static async Task SomeMethod1()
{
throw new Exception();
}
No exception would be handled in this case since the returned task is not awaited.
There is however a distinction between a simple Task-returning method and an async method:
public static Task TaskReturning()
{
throw new Exception();
return Task.Delay(1000);
}
public static async Task Async()
{
throw new Exception();
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
You can avoid code duplication by simply having an async wrapper method that both invokes the method and awaits the returned task inside a single try-catch block:
public static async Task HandleAsync()
{
try
{
await TaskReturning();
// Add to cache.
}
catch
{
// handle exception from both the synchronous and asynchronous parts.
}
}
In addition to what I3arnon said in his answer, in case you ContinueWith on async method without the TaskContinuationOptions you specify, exception captured by the Task parameter you receive in the continuation handler can be handled in the following way:
SomeMethod1().ContinueWith(ProcessResult);
SomeMethod2().ContinueWith(ProcessResult);
With ProcessResult handler which looks like:
private void ProcessResult<TResult>(Task<TResult> task)
{
if (task.IsFaulted)
{
//remove from cahe
}
else if (task.IsCompleted)
{
//add to cache
}
}
I have a "High-Precision" timer class that I need to be able to be start, stop & pause / resume. To do this, I'm tying together a couple of different examples I found on the internet, but I'm not sure if I'm using Tasks with asnyc / await correctly.
Here is my relevant code:
//based on http://haukcode.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/high-precision-timer-in-netc/
public class HighPrecisionTimer : IDisposable
{
Task _task;
CancellationTokenSource _cancelSource;
//based on http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2013/01/13/cooperatively-pausing-async-methods.aspx
PauseTokenSource _pauseSource;
Stopwatch _watch;
Stopwatch Watch { get { return _watch ?? (_watch = Stopwatch.StartNew()); } }
public bool IsPaused
{
get { return _pauseSource != null && _pauseSource.IsPaused; }
private set
{
if (value)
{
_pauseSource = new PauseTokenSource();
}
else
{
_pauseSource.IsPaused = false;
}
}
}
public bool IsRunning { get { return !IsPaused && _task != null && _task.Status == TaskStatus.Running; } }
public void Start()
{
if (IsPaused)
{
IsPaused = false;
}
else if (!IsRunning)
{
_cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
_task = new Task(ExecuteAsync, _cancelSource.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
_task.Start();
}
}
public void Stop()
{
if (_cancelSource != null)
{
_cancelSource.Cancel();
}
}
public void Pause()
{
if (!IsPaused)
{
if (_watch != null)
{
_watch.Stop();
}
}
IsPaused = !IsPaused;
}
async void ExecuteAsync()
{
while (!_cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (_pauseSource != null && _pauseSource.IsPaused)
{
await _pauseSource.Token.WaitWhilePausedAsync();
}
// DO CUSTOM TIMER STUFF...
}
if (_watch != null)
{
_watch.Stop();
_watch = null;
}
_cancelSource = null;
_pauseSource = null;
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (IsRunning)
{
_cancelSource.Cancel();
}
}
}
Can anyone please take a look and provide me some pointers on whether I'm doing this correctly?
UPDATE
I have tried modifying my code per Noseratio's comments below, but I still cannot figure out the syntax. Every attempt to pass the ExecuteAsync() method to either TaskFactory.StartNew or Task.Run, results in a compilation error like the following:
"The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: TaskFactory.StartNew(Action, CancellationToken...) and TaskFactory.StartNew<Task>(Func<Task>, CancellationToken...)".
Finally, is there a way to specify the LongRunning TaskCreationOption without having to provide a TaskScheduler?
async **Task** ExecuteAsync()
{
while (!_cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (_pauseSource != null && _pauseSource.IsPaused)
{
await _pauseSource.Token.WaitWhilePausedAsync();
}
//...
}
}
public void Start()
{
//_task = Task.Factory.StartNew(ExecuteAsync, _cancelSource.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, null);
//_task = Task.Factory.StartNew(ExecuteAsync, _cancelSource.Token);
//_task = Task.Run(ExecuteAsync, _cancelSource.Token);
}
UPDATE 2
I think I've narrowed this down, but still not sure about the correct syntax. Would this be the right way to create the task so that the consumer / calling code continues on, with the task spinning-up and starting on a new asynchronous thread?
_task = Task.Run(async () => await ExecuteAsync, _cancelSource.Token);
//**OR**
_task = Task.Factory.StartNew(async () => await ExecuteAsync, _cancelSource.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default);
Here are some points:
async void methods are only good for asynchronous event handlers (more info). Your async void ExecuteAsync() returns instantly (as soon as the code flow reaches await _pauseSource inside it). Essentially, your _task is in the completed state after that, while the rest of ExecuteAsync will be executed unobserved (because it's void). It may even not continue executing at all, depending on when your main thread (and thus, the process) terminates.
Given that, you should make it async Task ExecuteAsync(), and use Task.Run or Task.Factory.StartNew instead of new Task to start it. Because you want your task's action method be async, you'd be dealing with nested tasks here, i.e. Task<Task>, which Task.Run would automatically unwrap for you. More info can be found here and here.
PauseTokenSource takes the following approach (by design, AFAIU): the consumer side of the code (the one which calls Pause) actually only requests a pause, but doesn't synchronize on it. It will continue executing after Pause, even though the producer side may not have reached the awaiting state yet, i.e. await _pauseSource.Token.WaitWhilePausedAsync(). This may be ok for your app logic, but you should be aware of it. More info here.
[UPDATE] Below is the correct syntax for using Factory.StartNew. Note Task<Task> and task.Unwrap. Also note _task.Wait() in Stop, it's there to make sure the task has completed when Stop returns (in a way similar to Thread.Join). Also, TaskScheduler.Default is used to instruct Factory.StartNew to use the thread pool scheduler. This is important if your create your HighPrecisionTimer object from inside another task, which in turn was created on a thread with non-default synchronization context, e.g. a UI thread (more info here and here).
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication
{
public class HighPrecisionTimer
{
Task _task;
CancellationTokenSource _cancelSource;
public void Start()
{
_cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task<Task> task = Task.Factory.StartNew(
function: ExecuteAsync,
cancellationToken: _cancelSource.Token,
creationOptions: TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning,
scheduler: TaskScheduler.Default);
_task = task.Unwrap();
}
public void Stop()
{
_cancelSource.Cancel(); // request the cancellation
_task.Wait(); // wait for the task to complete
}
async Task ExecuteAsync()
{
Console.WriteLine("Enter ExecuteAsync");
while (!_cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await Task.Delay(42); // for testing
// DO CUSTOM TIMER STUFF...
}
Console.WriteLine("Exit ExecuteAsync");
}
}
class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var highPrecisionTimer = new HighPrecisionTimer();
Console.WriteLine("Start timer");
highPrecisionTimer.Start();
Thread.Sleep(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Stop timer");
highPrecisionTimer.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Press Enter to exit...");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
I'm adding code for running long running task (infinite with cancelation) with internal sub tasks:
Task StartLoop(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
return Task.Factory.StartNew(async () => {
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
break;
await _taskRunner.Handle(cancellationToken);
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100), cancellationToken);
}
},
cancellationToken,
TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning,
TaskScheduler.Default);
}
I have some methods returning Task<T> on which I can await at will. I'd like to have those Tasks executed on a custom TaskScheduler instead of the default one.
var task = GetTaskAsync ();
await task;
I know I can create a new TaskFactory (new CustomScheduler ()) and do a StartNew () from it, but StartNew () takes an action and create the Task, and I already have the Task (returned behind the scenes by a TaskCompletionSource)
How can I specify my own TaskScheduler for await ?
I think what you really want is to do a Task.Run, but with a custom scheduler. StartNew doesn't work intuitively with asynchronous methods; Stephen Toub has a great blog post about the differences between Task.Run and TaskFactory.StartNew.
So, to create your own custom Run, you can do something like this:
private static readonly TaskFactory myTaskFactory = new TaskFactory(
CancellationToken.None, TaskCreationOptions.DenyChildAttach,
TaskContinuationOptions.None, new MyTaskScheduler());
private static Task RunOnMyScheduler(Func<Task> func)
{
return myTaskFactory.StartNew(func).Unwrap();
}
private static Task<T> RunOnMyScheduler<T>(Func<Task<T>> func)
{
return myTaskFactory.StartNew(func).Unwrap();
}
private static Task RunOnMyScheduler(Action func)
{
return myTaskFactory.StartNew(func);
}
private static Task<T> RunOnMyScheduler<T>(Func<T> func)
{
return myTaskFactory.StartNew(func);
}
Then you can execute synchronous or asynchronous methods on your custom scheduler.
The TaskCompletionSource<T>.Task is constructed without any action and the scheduler
is assigned on the first call to ContinueWith(...) (from Asynchronous Programming with the Reactive Framework and the Task Parallel Library — Part 3).
Thankfully you can customize the await behavior slightly by implementing your own class deriving from INotifyCompletion and then using it in a pattern similar to await SomeTask.ConfigureAwait(false) to configure the scheduler that the task should start using in the OnCompleted(Action continuation) method (from await anything;).
Here is the usage:
TaskCompletionSource<object> source = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
public async Task Foo() {
// Force await to schedule the task on the supplied scheduler
await SomeAsyncTask().ConfigureScheduler(scheduler);
}
public Task SomeAsyncTask() { return source.Task; }
Here is a simple implementation of ConfigureScheduler using a Task extension method with the important part in OnCompleted:
public static class TaskExtension {
public static CustomTaskAwaitable ConfigureScheduler(this Task task, TaskScheduler scheduler) {
return new CustomTaskAwaitable(task, scheduler);
}
}
public struct CustomTaskAwaitable {
CustomTaskAwaiter awaitable;
public CustomTaskAwaitable(Task task, TaskScheduler scheduler) {
awaitable = new CustomTaskAwaiter(task, scheduler);
}
public CustomTaskAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return awaitable; }
public struct CustomTaskAwaiter : INotifyCompletion {
Task task;
TaskScheduler scheduler;
public CustomTaskAwaiter(Task task, TaskScheduler scheduler) {
this.task = task;
this.scheduler = scheduler;
}
public void OnCompleted(Action continuation) {
// ContinueWith sets the scheduler to use for the continuation action
task.ContinueWith(x => continuation(), scheduler);
}
public bool IsCompleted { get { return task.IsCompleted; } }
public void GetResult() { }
}
}
Here's a working sample that will compile as a console application:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Example {
class Program {
static TaskCompletionSource<object> source = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
static TaskScheduler scheduler = new CustomTaskScheduler();
static void Main(string[] args) {
Console.WriteLine("Main Started");
var task = Foo();
Console.WriteLine("Main Continue ");
// Continue Foo() using CustomTaskScheduler
source.SetResult(null);
Console.WriteLine("Main Finished");
}
public static async Task Foo() {
Console.WriteLine("Foo Started");
// Force await to schedule the task on the supplied scheduler
await SomeAsyncTask().ConfigureScheduler(scheduler);
Console.WriteLine("Foo Finished");
}
public static Task SomeAsyncTask() { return source.Task; }
}
public struct CustomTaskAwaitable {
CustomTaskAwaiter awaitable;
public CustomTaskAwaitable(Task task, TaskScheduler scheduler) {
awaitable = new CustomTaskAwaiter(task, scheduler);
}
public CustomTaskAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return awaitable; }
public struct CustomTaskAwaiter : INotifyCompletion {
Task task;
TaskScheduler scheduler;
public CustomTaskAwaiter(Task task, TaskScheduler scheduler) {
this.task = task;
this.scheduler = scheduler;
}
public void OnCompleted(Action continuation) {
// ContinueWith sets the scheduler to use for the continuation action
task.ContinueWith(x => continuation(), scheduler);
}
public bool IsCompleted { get { return task.IsCompleted; } }
public void GetResult() { }
}
}
public static class TaskExtension {
public static CustomTaskAwaitable ConfigureScheduler(this Task task, TaskScheduler scheduler) {
return new CustomTaskAwaitable(task, scheduler);
}
}
public class CustomTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler {
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() { yield break; }
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) { return false; }
protected override void QueueTask(Task task) {
TryExecuteTask(task);
}
}
}
There is no way to embed rich async features into a custom TaskScheduler. This class was not designed with async/await in mind. The standard way to use a custom TaskScheduler is as an argument to the Task.Factory.StartNew method. This method does not understand async delegates. It is possible to provide an async delegate, but it is treated as any other delegate that returns some result. To get the actual awaited result of the async delegate one must call Unwrap() to the task returned.
This is not the problem though. The problem is that the TaskScheduler infrastructure does not treat the async delegate as a single unit of work. Each task is split into multiple mini-tasks (using every await as a separator), and each mini-task is processed individually. This severely restricts the asynchronous functionality that can be implemented on top of this class. As an example here is a custom TaskScheduler that is intended to queue the supplied tasks one at a time (to limit the concurrency in other words):
public class MyTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
private readonly SemaphoreSlim _semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
protected async override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
await _semaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
await Task.Run(() => base.TryExecuteTask(task));
await task;
}
finally
{
_semaphore.Release();
}
}
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task,
bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) => false;
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() { yield break; }
}
The SemaphoreSlim should ensure that only one Task would run at a time. Unfortunately it doesn't work. The semaphore is released prematurely, because the Task passed in the call QueueTask(task) is not the task that represents the whole work of the async delegate, but only the part until the first await. The other parts are passed to the TryExecuteTaskInline method. There is no way to correlate these task-parts, because no identifier or other mechanism is provided. Here is what happens in practice:
var taskScheduler = new MyTaskScheduler();
var tasks = Enumerable.Range(1, 5).Select(n => Task.Factory.StartNew(async () =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"{DateTime.Now:HH:mm:ss.fff} Item {n} Started");
await Task.Delay(1000);
Console.WriteLine($"{DateTime.Now:HH:mm:ss.fff} Item {n} Finished");
}, default, TaskCreationOptions.None, taskScheduler))
.Select(t => t.Unwrap())
.ToArray();
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
Output:
05:29:58.346 Item 1 Started
05:29:58.358 Item 2 Started
05:29:58.358 Item 3 Started
05:29:58.358 Item 4 Started
05:29:58.358 Item 5 Started
05:29:59.358 Item 1 Finished
05:29:59.374 Item 5 Finished
05:29:59.374 Item 4 Finished
05:29:59.374 Item 2 Finished
05:29:59.374 Item 3 Finished
Disaster, all tasks are queued at once.
Conclusion: Customizing the TaskScheduler class is not the way to go when advanced async features are required.
Update: Here is another observation, regarding custom TaskSchedulers in the presence of an ambient SynchronizationContext. The await mechanism by default captures the current SynchronizationContext, or the current TaskScheduler, and invokes the continuation on either the captured context
or the scheduler. If both are present, the current SynchronizationContext is preferred, and the current TaskScheduler is ignored. Below is a demonstration of this behavior, in a WinForms application¹:
private async void Button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Task.Factory.StartNew(async () =>
{
MessageBox.Show($"{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}, {TaskScheduler.Current}");
await Task.Delay(1000);
MessageBox.Show($"{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}, {TaskScheduler.Current}");
}, default, TaskCreationOptions.None,
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext()).Unwrap();
}
Clicking the button causes two messages to popup sequentially, with this information:
1, System.Threading.Tasks.SynchronizationContextTaskScheduler
1, System.Threading.Tasks.ThreadPoolTaskScheduler
This experiment shows that only the first part of the asynchronous delegate, the part before the first await, was scheduled on the non-default scheduler.
This behavior limits even further the practical usefulness of custom TaskSchedulers in an async/await-enabled environment.
¹ Windows Forms applications have a WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext installed automatically, when the Application.Run method is called.
Can you fit for this method call:
await Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => { /* to do what you need */ },
CancellationToken.None, /* you can change as you need */
TaskCreationOptions.None, /* you can change as you need */
customScheduler);
After the comments it looks like you want to control the scheduler on which the code after the await is run.
The compile creates a continuation from the await that runs on the current SynchronizationContext by default. So your best shot is to set up the SynchronizationContext before calling await.
There are some ways to await a specific context. See Configure Await from Jon Skeet, especially the part about SwitchTo, for more information on how to implement something like this.
EDIT:
The SwitchTo method from TaskEx has been removed, as it was too easy to misuse. See the MSDN Forum for reasons.
Faced with same issue, tried to use LimitedConcurrencyLevelTaskScheduler, but it does not support async tasks. So...
Just wrote my own small simple Scheduler, that allow to run async Tasks based on global ThreadPool (and Task.Run method) with ability to limit current max degree of parallelism. It is enough for my exact purposes, maybe will also help you, guys.
Main demo code (console app, dotnet core 3.1) :
static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
//5 tasks to run per time
int concurrentLimit = 5;
var scheduler = new ThreadPoolConcurrentScheduler(concurrentLimit);
//catch all errors in separate event handler
scheduler.OnError += Scheduler_OnError;
// just monitor "live" state and output to console
RunTaskStateMonitor(scheduler);
// simulate adding new tasks "on the fly"
SimulateAddingTasksInParallel(scheduler);
Console.WriteLine("start adding 50 tasks");
//add 50 tasks
for (var i = 1; i <= 50; i++)
{
scheduler.StartNew(myAsyncTask);
}
Console.WriteLine("50 tasks added to scheduler");
Thread.Sleep(1000000);
}
Supporting code (place it in the same place) :
private static void Scheduler_OnError(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
}
private static int currentTaskFinished = 0;
//your sample of async task
static async Task myAsyncTask()
{
Console.WriteLine("task started ");
using (HttpClient httpClient = new HttpClient())
{
//just make http request to ... wikipedia!
//sorry, Jimmy Wales! assume,guys, you will not DDOS wiki :)
var uri = new Uri("https://wikipedia.org/");
var response = await httpClient.GetAsync(uri);
string result = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(result))
Console.WriteLine("error, await is not working");
else
Console.WriteLine($"task result : site length is {result.Length}");
}
//or simulate it using by sync sleep
//Thread.Sleep(1000);
//and for tesing exception :
//throw new Exception("my custom error");
Console.WriteLine("task finished ");
//just incrementing total ran tasks to output in console
Interlocked.Increment(ref currentTaskFinished);
}
static void SimulateAddingTasksInParallel(ThreadPoolConcurrentScheduler taskScheduler)
{
int runCount = 0;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
runCount++;
if (runCount > 5)
break;
//every 10 sec 5 times
Thread.Sleep(10000);
//adding new 5 tasks from outer task
Console.WriteLine("start adding new 5 tasks!");
for (var i = 1; i <= 5; i++)
{
taskScheduler.StartNew(myAsyncTask);
}
Console.WriteLine("new 5 tasks added!");
}
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
}
static void RunTaskStateMonitor(ThreadPoolConcurrentScheduler taskScheduler)
{
int prev = -1;
int prevQueueSize = -1;
int prevFinished = -1;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
// getting current thread count in working state
var currCount = taskScheduler.GetCurrentWorkingThreadCount();
// getting inner queue state
var queueSize = taskScheduler.GetQueueTaskCount();
//just output overall state if something changed
if (prev != currCount || queueSize != prevQueueSize || prevFinished != currentTaskFinished)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Monitor : running tasks:{currCount}, queueLength:{queueSize}. total Finished tasks : " + currentTaskFinished);
prev = currCount;
prevQueueSize = queueSize;
prevFinished = currentTaskFinished;
}
// check it every 10 ms
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
}
, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
}
Scheduler :
public class ThreadPoolConcurrentScheduler
{
private readonly int _limitParallelThreadsCount;
private int _threadInProgressCount = 0;
public delegate void onErrorDelegate(Exception ex);
public event onErrorDelegate OnError;
private ConcurrentQueue<Func<Task>> _taskQueue;
private readonly object _queueLocker = new object();
public ThreadPoolConcurrentScheduler(int limitParallelThreadsCount)
{
//set maximum parallel tasks to run
_limitParallelThreadsCount = limitParallelThreadsCount;
// thread-safe queue to store tasks
_taskQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<Func<Task>>();
}
//main method to start async task
public void StartNew(Func<Task> task)
{
lock (_queueLocker)
{
// checking limit
if (_threadInProgressCount >= _limitParallelThreadsCount)
{
//waiting new "free" threads in queue
_scheduleTask(task);
}
else
{
_startNewTask(task);
}
}
}
private void _startNewTask(Func<Task> task)
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref _threadInProgressCount);
Task.Run(async () =>
{
try
{
await task();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
//Console.WriteLine(e);
OnError?.Invoke(e);
}
}).ContinueWith(_onTaskEnded);
}
//will be called on task end
private void _onTaskEnded(Task task)
{
lock (_queueLocker)
{
Interlocked.Decrement(ref _threadInProgressCount);
//queue has more priority, so if thread is free - let's check queue first
if (!_taskQueue.IsEmpty)
{
if (_taskQueue.TryDequeue(out var result))
{
_startNewTask(result);
}
}
}
}
private void _scheduleTask(Func<Task> task)
{
_taskQueue.Enqueue(task);
}
//returning in progress task count
public int GetCurrentWorkingThreadCount()
{
return _threadInProgressCount;
}
//return number of tasks waiting to run
public int GetQueueTaskCount()
{
lock (_queueLocker) return _taskQueue.Count;
}
}
Few notes :
First - check comments to it, maybe it is the worst code ever!
Did not test in prod
Did not implement cancellation tokens and any other functionality, that should be there, but i'm too lazy. Sorry