Develop Reference

Continuation is running before antecedents have finished

I have two long running tasks that I want to execute, to be followed with a continuation. The problem I am having is that the continuation is running before the two long running tasks have signalled. Those two tasks are not erroring, they've barely started when the continuation commences.
The intent is that the first two tasks can run in parallel, but the continuation should only run once they've both finished.
I have probably overlooked something really simple, but near as I can tell I am following the patterns suggested in the question Running multiple async tasks and waiting for them all to complete. I realise I could probably dispense with the .ContinueWith() as the code following the Task.WhenAll() will implicitly become a continuation, but I prefer to keep the explicit continuation (unless it is the cause of my issue).
private async Task MyMethod()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>
{
new Task(async () => await DoLongRunningTask1()),
new Task(async () => await DoLongRunningTask2())
};
Parallel.ForEach(tasks, async task => task.Start());
await Task.WhenAll(tasks)
.ContinueWith(async t =>{
//another long running bit of code with some parallel
//execution based on the results of the first two tasks
}
, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
}
private async Task DoLongRunningTask1()
{
... long running operation ...
}
private async Task DoLongRunningTask2()
{
... another long running operation ...
}
I appreciate any help or suggestions!

Your code has multiple issues:
Creating tasks with the non-generic Task constructor, with async delegate. This constructor accepts an Action, not a Func<Task>, so your async delegate is actually an async void, which is something to avoid. You can fix this by creating nested Task<Task>s, where the outer task represents the launching of the inner task.
Using the Parallel.ForEach with async delegate. This again results in async void delegate, for the same reason. The correct API to use when you want to parallelize asynchronous delegates is the Parallel.ForEachAsync, available from .NET 6 and later.
Using parallelism to start tasks. Starting a task with Start is not CPU-bound. The Start doesn't execute the task, it just schedules it for execution, normally on the ThreadPool. So you can replace the Parallel.ForEach with a simple foreach loop or the List.ForEach.
Awaiting an unwrapped ContinueWith continuation that has an async delegate. This continuation returns a nested Task<Task>. You should Unwrap this nested task, otherwise you are awaiting the launching of the asynchronous operation, not its completion.
Here is your code "fixed":
private async Task MyMethod()
{
List<Task<Task>> tasksOfTasks = new()
{
new Task<Task>(async () => await DoLongRunningTask1()),
new Task<Task>(async () => await DoLongRunningTask2())
};
tasksOfTasks.ForEach(taskTask => taskTask.Start());
await Task.WhenAll(tasksOfTasks.Select(taskTask => taskTask.Unwrap()))
.ContinueWith(async t =>
{
//another long running bit of code with some parallel
//execution based on the results of the first two tasks
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion).Unwrap();
}
In case of failure in the DoLongRunningTask1 or the DoLongRunningTask2 methods, this code will most likely result in a TaskCanceledException, which is what happens when you pass the TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion flag and the antecedent task does not run to completion successfully. This behavior is unlikely to be what you want.
The above code also violates the guideline CA2008: Do not create tasks without passing a TaskScheduler. This guideline says that being depended on the ambient TaskScheduler.Current is not a good idea, and specifying explicitly the TaskScheduler.Default is recommended. You'll have to specify it in both the Start and ContinueWith methods.
If you think that all this is overly complicated, you are right. That's not the kind of code that you want to write and maintain, unless you have spent months studying the Task Parallel Library, you know it in and out, and you have no other higher-level alternative. It's the kind of code that you might find in specialized libraries, not in application code.

You are overusing async. Below is more cleaner rewrite of what you have done above.
private async Task MyMethod()
{
var tasks = new Task[] {DoLongRunningTask1(), DoLongRunningTask2()];
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
//another long running bit of code with some parallel
//execution based on the results of the first two tasks
}
private async Task DoLongRunningTask1()
{
... long running operation ...
}
private async Task DoLongRunningTask2()
{
... another long running operation ...
}
I assumed DoLongRunningTask's are async in nature, if they are syncronious then start them using Task.Run within a ThreadPool thread and use resulting Task.

What's the difference between starting and awaiting a Task?

What's the difference between starting and awaiting? Code below taken from Stephen Cleary's blog (including comments)
public async Task DoOperationsConcurrentlyAsync()
{
Task[] tasks = new Task[3];
tasks[0] = DoOperation0Async();
tasks[1] = DoOperation1Async();
tasks[2] = DoOperation2Async();
// At this point, all three tasks are running at the same time.
// Now, we await them all.
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
I thought that the tasks begin running when you await them ... but the comments in the code seem to imply otherwise.
Also, how can the tasks be running after I just attributed them to an array of type Task. Isn't that just an attribution, by nature not involving action?

A Task returns "hot" (i.e. already started). await asynchronously waits for the Task to complete.
In your example, where you actually do the await will affect whether the tasks are ran one after the other, or all of them at the same time:
await DoOperation0Async(); // start DoOperation0Async, wait for completion, then move on
await DoOperation1Async(); // start DoOperation1Async, wait for completion, then move on
await DoOperation2Async(); // start DoOperation2Async, wait for completion, then move on
As opposed to:
tasks[0] = DoOperation0Async(); // start DoOperation0Async, move on without waiting for completion
tasks[1] = DoOperation1Async(); // start DoOperation1Async, move on without waiting for completion
tasks[2] = DoOperation2Async(); // start DoOperation2Async, move on without waiting for completion
await Task.WhenAll(tasks); // wait for all of them to complete
Update
"doesn't await make an async operation... behave like sync, in this example (and not only)? Because we can't (!) run anything else in parallel with DoOperation0Async() in the first case. By comparison, in the 2nd case DoOperation0Async() and DoOperation1Async() run in parallel (e.g. concurrency,the main benefits of async?)"
This is a big subject and a question worth being asked as it's own thread on SO as it deviates from the original question of the difference between starting and awaiting tasks - therefore I'll keep this answer short, while referring you to other answers where appropriate.
No, awaiting an async operation does not make it behave like sync; what these keywords do is enabling developers to write asynchronous code that resembles a synchronous workflow (see this answer by Eric Lippert for more).
Calling await DoOperation0Async() will not block the thread executing this code flow, whereas a synchronous version of DoOperation0 (or something like DoOperation0Async.Result) will block the thread until the operation is complete.
Think about this in a web context. Let's say a request arrives in a server application. As part of producing a response to that request, you need to do a long-running operation (e.g. query an external API to get some value needed to produce your response). If the execution of this long-running operation was synchronous, the thread executing your request would block as it would have to wait for the long-running operation to complete. On the other hand, if the execution of this long-running operation was asynchronous, the request thread could be freed up so it could do other things (like service other requests) while the long-running operation was still running. Then, when the long-running operation would eventually complete, the request thread (or possibly another thread from the thread pool) could pick up from where it left off (as the long-running operation would be complete and it's result would now be available) and do whatever work was left to produce the response.
The server application example also addresses the second part of your question about the main benefits of async - async/await is all about freeing up threads.

Isn't that just an attribution, by nature not involving action?
By calling the async method you execute the code within. Usually down the chain one method will create a Task and return it either by using return or by awaiting.
Starting a Task
You can start a Task by using Task.Run(...). This schedules some work on the Task Thread Pool.
Awaiting a Task
To get a Task you usually call some (async) Method that returns a Task. An async method behaves like a regular method until you await (or use Task.Run() ). Note that if you await down a chain of methods and the "final" method only does a Thread.Sleep() or synchronous operation - then you will block the initial calling thread, because no method ever used the Task's Thread Pool.
You can do some actual asynchronous operation in many ways:
using Task.Run
using Task.Delay
using Task.Yield
call a library that offers asynchronous operations
These are the ones that come to my mind, there are probably more.
By example
Let's assume that Thread ID 1 is the main thread where you are calling MethodA() from. Thread IDs 5 and up are Threads to run Tasks on (System.Threading.Tasks provides a default Scheduler for that).
public async Task MethodA()
{
// Thread ID 1, 0s passed total
var a = MethodB(); // takes 1s
// Thread ID 1, 1s passed total
await Task.WhenAll(a); // takes 2s
// Thread ID 5, 3s passed total
// When the method returns, the SynchronizationContext
// can change the Thread - see below
}
public async Task MethodB()
{
// Thread ID 1, 0s passed total
Thread.Sleep(1000); // simulate blocking operation for 1s
// Thread ID 1, 1s passed total
// the await makes MethodB return a Task to MethodA
// this task is run on the Task ThreadPool
await Task.Delay(2000); // simulate async call for 2s
// Thread ID 2 (Task's pool Thread), 3s passed total
}
We can see that MethodA was blocked on the MethodB until we hit an await statement.
Await, SynchronizationContext, and Console Apps
You should be aware of one feature of Tasks. They make sure to invoke back to a SynchronizationContext if one is present (basically non-console apps). You can easily run into a deadlock when using .Result or .Wait() on a Task if the called code does not take measures. See https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pfxteam/2012/01/20/await-synchronizationcontext-and-console-apps/
async/await as syntactic sugar
await basically just schedules following code to run after the call was completed. Let me illustrate the idea of what is happening behind the scenes.
This is the untransformed code using async/await. The Something method is awaited, so all following code (Bye) will be run after Something completed.
public async Task SomethingAsync()
{
Hello();
await Something();
Bye();
}
To explain this I add a utility class Worker that simply takes some action to run and then notify when done.
public class Worker
{
private Action _action;
public event DoneHandler Done;
// skipping defining DoneHandler delegate
// store the action
public Worker(Action action) => _action = action;
public void Run()
{
// execute the action
_action();
// notify so that following code is run
Done?.Invoke();
}
}
Now our transformed code, not using async/await
public Task SomethingAsync()
{
Hello(); // this remains untouched
// create the worker to run the "awaited" method
var worker = new Worker(() => Something());
// register the rest of our method
worker.Done += () => Bye();
// execute it
worker.Run();
// I left out the part where we return something
// or run the action on a threadpool to keep it simple
}

Here's the short answer:
To answer this you just need to understand what the async / await keywords do.
We know a single thread can only do one thing at a time and we also know that a single thread bounces all over the application to various method calls and events, ETC. This means that where the thread needs to go next is most likely scheduled or queued up somewhere behind the scenes (it is but I won't explain that part here.) When a thread calls a method, that method is ran to completion before any other methods can be ran which is why long running methods are preferred to be dispatched to other threads to prevent the application from freezing. In order to break a single method up into separate queues we need to do some fancy programming OR you can put the async signature on the method. This tells the compiler that at some point the method can be broken up into other methods and placed in a queue to be ran later.
If that makes sense then you're already figuring out what await does... await tells the compiler that this is where the method is going to be broken up and scheduled to run later. This is why you can use the async keyword without the await keyword; although the compiler knows this and warns you. await does all this for you by use of a Task.
How does await use a Task tell the compiler to schedule the rest of the method? When you call await Task the compilers calls the Task.GetAwaiter() method on that Task for you. GetAwaiter() return a TaskAwaiter. The TaskAwaiter implements two interfaces ICriticalNotifyCompletion, INotifyCompletion. Each has one method, UnsafeOnCompleted(Action continuation) and OnCompleted(Action continuation). The compiler then wraps the rest of the method (after the await keyword) and puts it in an Action and then it calls the OnCompleted and UnsafeOnCompleted methods and passes that Action in as a parameter. Now when the Task is complete, if successful it calls OnCompleted and if not it calls UnsafeOnCompleted and it calls those on the same thread context used to start the Task. It uses the ThreadContext to dispatch the thread to the original thread.
Now you can understand that neither async or await execute any Tasks. They simply tell the compiler to use some prewritten code to schedule all of it for you. In fact; you can await a Task that's not running and it will await until the Task is executed and completed or until the application ends.
Knowing this; lets get hacky and understand it deeper by doing what async await does manually.
Using async await
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Question_Answer_Console_App
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Test();
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static async void Test()
{
Console.WriteLine($"Before Task");
await DoWorkAsync();
Console.WriteLine($"After Task");
}
static public Task DoWorkAsync()
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"{nameof(DoWorkAsync)} starting...");
Task.Delay(1000).Wait();
Console.WriteLine($"{nameof(DoWorkAsync)} ending...");
});
}
}
}
//OUTPUT
//Before Task
//DoWorkAsync starting...
//DoWorkAsync ending...
//After Task
Doing what the compiler does manually (sort of)
Note: Although this code works it is meant to help you understand async await from a top down point of view. It DOES NOT encompass or execute the same way the compiler does verbatim.
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Question_Answer_Console_App
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Test();
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static void Test()
{
Console.WriteLine($"Before Task");
var task = DoWorkAsync();
var taskAwaiter = task.GetAwaiter();
taskAwaiter.OnCompleted(() => Console.WriteLine($"After Task"));
}
static public Task DoWorkAsync()
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"{nameof(DoWorkAsync)} starting...");
Task.Delay(1000).Wait();
Console.WriteLine($"{nameof(DoWorkAsync)} ending...");
});
}
}
}
//OUTPUT
//Before Task
//DoWorkAsync starting...
//DoWorkAsync ending...
//After Task
LESSON SUMMARY:
Note that the method in my example DoWorkAsync() is just a function that returns a Task. In my example the Task is running because in the method I use return Task.Run(() =>…. Using the keyword await does not change that logic. It's exactly the same; await only does what I mentioned above.
If you have any questions just ask and I'll be happy to answer them.

With starting you start a task. That means it might be picked up for execution by whatever Multitasaking system is in place.
With waiting, you wait for one task to actually finish before you continue.
There is no such thing as a Fire and Forget Thread. You always need to come back, to react to exceptions or do somethings with the result of the asynchronous operation (Database Query or WebQuery result, FileSystem operation finished, Dokument send to the nearest printer pool).
You can start and have as many task running in paralell as you want. But sooner or later you will require the results before you can go on.

Executing tasks in parallel

Ok, so basically I have a bunch of tasks (10) and I want to start them all at the same time and wait for them to complete. When completed I want to execute other tasks. I read a bunch of resources about this but I can't get it right for my particular case...
Here is what I currently have (code has been simplified):
public async Task RunTasks()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>
{
new Task(async () => await DoWork()),
//and so on with the other 9 similar tasks
}
Parallel.ForEach(tasks, task =>
{
task.Start();
});
Task.WhenAll(tasks).ContinueWith(done =>
{
//Run the other tasks
});
}
//This function perform some I/O operations
public async Task DoWork()
{
var results = await GetDataFromDatabaseAsync();
foreach (var result in results)
{
await ReadFromNetwork(result.Url);
}
}
So my problem is that when I'm waiting for tasks to complete with the WhenAll call, it tells me that all tasks are over even though none of them are completed. I tried adding Console.WriteLine in my foreach and when I have entered the continuation task, data keeps coming in from my previous Tasks that aren't really finished.
What am I doing wrong here?

You should almost never use the Task constructor directly. In your case that task only fires the actual task that you can't wait for.
You can simply call DoWork and get back a task, store it in a list and wait for all the tasks to complete. Meaning:
tasks.Add(DoWork());
// ...
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
However, async methods run synchronously until the first await on an uncompleted task is reached. If you worry about that part taking too long then use Task.Run to offload it to another ThreadPool thread and then store that task in the list:
tasks.Add(Task.Run(() => DoWork()));
// ...
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);

If you want to run those task's parallel in different threads using TPL you may need something like this:
public async Task RunTasks()
{
var tasks = new List<Func<Task>>
{
DoWork,
//...
};
await Task.WhenAll(tasks.AsParallel().Select(async task => await task()));
//Run the other tasks
}
These approach parallelizing only small amount of code: the queueing of the method to the thread pool and the return of an uncompleted Task. Also for such small amount of task parallelizing can take more time than just running asynchronously. This could make sense only if your tasks do some longer (synchronous) work before their first await.
For most cases better way will be:
public async Task RunTasks()
{
await Task.WhenAll(new []
{
DoWork(),
//...
});
//Run the other tasks
}
To my opinion in your code:
You should not wrap your code in Task before passing to Parallel.ForEach.
You can just await Task.WhenAll instead of using ContinueWith.

Essentially you're mixing two incompatible async paradigms; i.e. Parallel.ForEach() and async-await.
For what you want, do one or the other. E.g. you can just use Parallel.For[Each]() and drop the async-await altogether. Parallel.For[Each]() will only return when all the parallel tasks are complete, and you can then move onto the other tasks.
The code has some other issues too:
you mark the method async but don't await in it (the await you do have is in the delegate, not the method);
you almost certainly want .ConfigureAwait(false) on your awaits, especially if you aren't trying to use the results immediately in a UI thread.

The DoWork method is an asynchronous I/O method. It means that you don't need multiple threads to execute several of them, as most of the time the method will asynchronously wait for the I/O to complete. One thread is enough to do that.
public async Task RunTasks()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>
{
DoWork(),
//and so on with the other 9 similar tasks
};
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
//Run the other tasks
}
You should almost never use the Task constructor to create a new task. To create an asynchronous I/O task, simply call the async method. To create a task that will be executed on a thread pool thread, use Task.Run. You can read this article for a detailed explanation of Task.Run and other options of creating tasks.

Just also add a try-catch block around the Task.WhenAll
NB: An instance of System.AggregateException is thrown that acts as a wrapper around one or more exceptions that have occurred. This is important for methods that coordinate multiple tasks like Task.WaitAll() and Task.WaitAny() so the AggregateException is able to wrap all the exceptions within the running tasks that have occurred.
try
{
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
catch(AggregateException ex)
{
foreach (Exception inner in ex.InnerExceptions)
{
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("Exception type {0} from {1}", inner.GetType(), inner.Source));
}
}

How to pass LongRunning flag specifically to Task.Run()?

I need a way to set an async task as long running without using Task.Factory.StartNew(...) and instead using Task.Run(...) or something similar.
Context:
I have Task that loops continuously until it is externally canceled that I would like to set as 'long running' (i.e. give it a dedicated thread). This can be achieved through the code below:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task t = Task.Factory.StartNew(
async () => {
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
try
{
"Running...".Dump();
await Task.Delay(500, cts.Token);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException ex) { }
} }, cts.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default);
The problem is that Task.Factory.StartNew(...) does not return the active async task that is passed in but rather a 'task of running the Action' which functionally always has taskStatus of 'RanToCompletion'. Since my code needs to be able to track the task's status to see when it becomes 'Canceled' (or 'Faulted') I need to use something like below:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task t = Task.Run(
async () => {
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
try
{
"Running...".Dump();
await Task.Delay(500, cts.Token);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException ex) { }
} }, cts.Token);
Task.Run(...), as desired, returns the async process itself allowing me to obtain actual statuses of 'Canceled' or 'Faulted'. I cannot specify the task as long running, however. So, anyone know how to best go about running an async task while both storing that active task itself (with desired taskStatus) and setting the task to long running?

I have Task that loops continuously until it is externally canceled that I would like to set as 'long running' (i.e. give it a dedicated thread)... anyone know how to best go about running an async task while both storing that active task itself (with desired taskStatus) and setting the task to long running?
There's a few problems with this. First, "long running" does not necessarily mean a dedicated thread - it just means that you're giving the TPL a hint that the task is long-running. In the current (4.5) implementation, you will get a dedicated thread; but that's not guaranteed and could change in the future.
So, if you need a dedicated thread, you'll have to just create one.
The other problem is the notion of an "asynchronous task". What actually happens with async code running on the thread pool is that the thread is returned to the thread pool while the asynchronous operation (i.e., Task.Delay) is in progress. Then, when the async op completes, a thread is taken from the thread pool to resume the async method. In the general case, this is more efficient than reserving a thread specifically to complete that task.
So, with async tasks running on the thread pool, dedicated threads don't really make sense.
Regarding solutions:
If you do need a dedicated thread to run your async code, I'd recommend using the AsyncContextThread from my AsyncEx library:
using (var thread = new AsyncContextThread())
{
Task t = thread.TaskFactory.Run(async () =>
{
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
try
{
"Running...".Dump();
await Task.Delay(500, cts.Token);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException ex) { }
}
});
}
However, you almost certainly don't need a dedicated thread. If your code can execute on the thread pool, then it probably should; and a dedicated thread doesn't make sense for async methods running on the thread pool. More specifically, the long-running flag doesn't make sense for async methods running on the thread pool.
Put another way, with an async lambda, what the thread pool actually executes (and sees as tasks) are just the parts of the lambda in-between the await statements. Since those parts aren't long-running, the long-running flag is not required. And your solution becomes:
Task t = Task.Run(async () =>
{
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); // not long-running
try
{
"Running...".Dump(); // not long-running
await Task.Delay(500, cts.Token); // not executed by the thread pool
}
catch (TaskCanceledException ex) { }
}
});

Call Unwrap on the task returned from Task.Factory.StartNew this will return the inner task, which has the correct status.
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task t = Task.Factory.StartNew(
async () => {
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
try
{
"Running...".Dump();
await Task.Delay(500, cts.Token);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException ex) { }
} }, cts.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default).Unwrap();

On a dedicated thread, there's nothing to yield to. Don't use async and await, use synchronous calls.
This question gives two ways to do a cancellable sleep without await:
Task.Delay(500, cts.Token).Wait(); // requires .NET 4.5
cts.WaitHandle.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500)); // valid in .NET 4.0 and later
If part of your work does use parallelism, you can start parallel tasks, saving those into an array, and use Task.WaitAny on the Task[]. Still no use for await in the main thread procedure.

This is unnecessary and Task.Run will suffice as the Task Scheduler will set any task to LongRunning if it runs for more than 0.5 seconds.
See here why.
https://blog.stephencleary.com/2013/08/startnew-is-dangerous.html
You need to specify custom TaskCreationOptions. Let’s consider each of
the options. AttachedToParent shouldn’t be used in async tasks, so
that’s out. DenyChildAttach should always be used with async tasks
(hint: if you didn’t already know that, then StartNew isn’t the tool
you need). DenyChildAttach is passed by Task.Run. HideScheduler might
be useful in some really obscure scheduling scenarios but in general
should be avoided for async tasks. That only leaves LongRunning and
PreferFairness, which are both optimization hints that should only be
specified after application profiling. I often see LongRunning misused
in particular. In the vast majority of situations, the threadpool will
adjust to any long-running task in 0.5 seconds - without the
LongRunning flag. Most likely, you don’t really need it.

The real issue you have here is that your operation is not in fact long running. The actual work you're doing is an asynchronous operation, meaning it will return to the caller basically immediately. So not only do you not need to use the long running hint when having the task scheduler schedule it, there's no need to even use a thread pool thread to do this work, because it'll be basically instantaneous. You shouldn't be using StartNew or Run at all, let alone with the long running flag.
So rather than taking your asynchronous method and starting it in another thread, you can just start it right on the current thread by calling the asynchronous method. Offloading the starting of an already asynchronous operation is just creating more work that'll make things slower.
So your code simplifies all the way down to:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task t = DoWork();
async Task DoWork()
{
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
try
{
"Running...".Dump();
await Task.Delay(500, cts.Token);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException) { }
}
}

I think the consideration should be not how long the thread run but how much of its time is it really working.
In your example there is short work and them await Task.Delay(...).
If this is really the case in your project you probably shouldn't use a dedicated thread for this task and let it run on the regular thread pool. Every time you'll call await on an IO operation or on Task.Delay() you'll release the thread for other tasks to use.
You should only use LongRunning when you'll decrease your thread from the thread-pool and never give it back or give it back only for a small percentage of the time. In such a case (where the work is long and Task.Delay(...) is short in comparison) using a dedicated thread for the job is a reasonable solution.
On the other hand if your thread is really working most of the time it will consume system resources (CPU time) and maybe it doesn't really matter if it holds a thread of the thread-pool since it is preventing other work from happening anyway.
Conclusion? Just use Task.Run() (without LongRunning) and use await in your long running task when and if it is possible. Revert to LongRunning only when you actually see the other approach is causing you problems and even then check your code and design to make sure it is really necessary and there isn't something else you can change in your code.

Usage of Task.WhenAll with infinite Tasks produced by BlockingCollection

I am adding Background Tasks to a Blocking Collection (added in the Background).
I am waiting with Task.WhenAll on a Enumerable returned by GetConsumingEnumerable.
My question is: Is the overload of Task.WhenAll which receives an IEnumerable "prepared" to potentially receive an endless amount of tasks?
I am simply not sure if i can do it this way or if it was meant to be used this way?
private async Task RunAsync(TimeSpan delay, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
using (BlockingCollection<Task> jobcollection = new BlockingCollection<Task>())
{
Task addingTask = Task.Run(async () =>
{
while (true)
{
DateTime utcNow = DateTime.UtcNow;
var jobs = Repository.GetAllJobs();
foreach (var job in GetRootJobsDue(jobs, utcNow))
{
jobcollection.Add(Task.Run(() => RunJob(job, jobs, cancellationToken, utcNow), cancellationToken), cancellationToken);
}
await Task.Delay(delay, cancellationToken);
}
}, cancellationToken);
await Task.WhenAll(jobcollection.GetConsumingEnumerable(cancellationToken));
}
}

Since your goal is merely to wait until the cancellation token is cancelled, you should do that. For reasons others have explained, using WhenAll on an infinite sequence of tasks isn't the way to go about that. There are easier ways to get a task that will never complete.
await new TaskCompletionSource<bool>().Task
.ContinueWith(t => { }, cancellationToken);

Task.WhenAll will not work with an infinite number of tasks. It will first (synchronously) wait for the enumerable to finish, and then (asynchronously) wait for them all to complete.
If you want to react to a sequence in an asynchronous way, then you need to use IObservable<Task> (Reactive Extensions). You can use a TPL Dataflow BufferBlock as a "queue" that can work with either synchronous or asynchronous code, and is easily convertible to IObservable<Task>.

I assume that Task.WhenAll will try to enumerate the collection, which means that it itself will block until the collection is completed or cancelled. If it didn't, then the code could theoretically finish awaiting before the tasks have been created. So there's going to be an extra block in there... it will block waiting for the threads to be created, and then block again until the tasks are done. I don't think that's a bad thing for your code, as it's still going to block until the same point in time.