I've been working on a project and saw the below code. I am new to the async/await world. As far as I know, only a single task is performing in the method then why it is decorated with async/await. What benefits I am getting by using async/await and what is the drawback if I remove async/await i.e make it synchronous I am a little bit confused so any help will be appreciated.
[Route("UpdatePersonalInformation")]
public async Task<DataTransferObject<bool>> UpdatePersonalInformation([FromBody] UserPersonalInformationRequestModel model)
{
DataTransferObject<bool> transfer = new DataTransferObject<bool>();
try
{
model.UserId = UserIdentity;
transfer = await _userService.UpdateUserPersonalInformation(model);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
transfer.TransactionStatusCode = 500;
transfer.ErrorMessage = ex.Message;
}
return transfer;
}
Service code
public async Task<DataTransferObject<bool>> UpdateUserPersonalInformation(UserPersonalInformationRequestModel model)
{
DataTransferObject<bool> transfer = new DataTransferObject<bool>();
await Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
var data = _userProfileRepository.FindBy(x => x.AspNetUserId == model.UserId)?.FirstOrDefault();
if (data != null)
{
var userProfile = mapper.Map<UserProfile>(model);
userProfile.UpdatedBy = model.UserId;
userProfile.UpdateOn = DateTime.UtcNow;
userProfile.CreatedBy = data.CreatedBy;
userProfile.CreatedOn = data.CreatedOn;
userProfile.Id = data.Id;
userProfile.TypeId = data.TypeId;
userProfile.AspNetUserId = data.AspNetUserId;
userProfile.ProfileStatus = data.ProfileStatus;
userProfile.MemberSince = DateTime.UtcNow;
if(userProfile.DOB==DateTime.MinValue)
{
userProfile.DOB = null;
}
_userProfileRepository.Update(userProfile);
transfer.Value = true;
}
else
{
transfer.Value = false;
transfer.Message = "Invalid User";
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
transfer.ErrorMessage = ex.Message;
}
});
return transfer;
}
What benefits I am getting by using async/await
Normally, on ASP.NET, the benefit of async is that your server is more scalable - i.e., can handle more requests than it otherwise could. The "Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Request Handling" section of this article goes into more detail, but the short explanation is that async/await frees up a thread so that it can handle other requests while the asynchronous work is being done.
However, in this specific case, that's not actually what's going on. Using async/await in ASP.NET is good and proper, but using Task.Run on ASP.NET is not. Because what happens with Task.Run is that another thread is used to run the delegate within UpdateUserPersonalInformation. So this isn't asynchronous; it's just synchronous code running on a background thread. UpdateUserPersonalInformation will take another thread pool thread to run its synchronous repository call and then yield the request thread by using await. So it's just doing a thread switch for no benefit at all.
A proper implementation would make the repository asynchronous first, and then UpdateUserPersonalInformation can be implemented without Task.Run at all:
public async Task<DataTransferObject<bool>> UpdateUserPersonalInformation(UserPersonalInformationRequestModel model)
{
DataTransferObject<bool> transfer = new DataTransferObject<bool>();
try
{
var data = _userProfileRepository.FindBy(x => x.AspNetUserId == model.UserId)?.FirstOrDefault();
if (data != null)
{
...
await _userProfileRepository.UpdateAsync(userProfile);
transfer.Value = true;
}
else
{
transfer.Value = false;
transfer.Message = "Invalid User";
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
transfer.ErrorMessage = ex.Message;
}
return transfer;
}
The await keyword only indicates that the execution of the current function is halted until the Task which is being awaited is completed. This means if you remove the async, the method will continue execution and therefore immediately return the transfer object, even if the UpdateUserPersonalInformation Task is not finished.
Take a look at this example:
private void showInfo()
{
Task.Delay(1000);
MessageBox.Show("Info");
}
private async void showInfoAsync()
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
MessageBox.Show("Info");
}
In the first method, the MessageBox is immediately displayed, since the newly created Task (which only waits a specified amount of time) is not awaited. However, the second method specifies the await keyword, therefore the MessageBox is displayed only after the Task is finished (in the example, after 1000ms elapsed).
But, in both cases the delay Task is ran asynchronously in the background, so the main thread (for example the UI) will not freeze.
The usage of async-await mechanism mainly used
when you have some long calculation process which takes some time and you want it to be on the background
in UI when you don't want to make the main thread stuck which will be reflected on UI performance.
you can read more here:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/async
Time Outs
The main usages of async and await operates preventing TimeOuts by waiting for long operations to complete. However, there is another less known, but very powerful one.
If you don't await long operation, you will get a result back, such as a null, even though the actual request as not completed yet.
Cancellation Tokens
Async requests have a default parameter you can add:
public async Task<DataTransferObject<bool>> UpdatePersonalInformation(
[FromBody] UserPersonalInformationRequestModel model,
CancellationToken cancellationToken){..}
A CancellationToken allows the request to stop when the user changes pages or interrupts the connection. A good example of this is a user has a search box, and every time a letter is typed you filter and search results from your API. Now imagine the user types a very long string with say 15 characters. That means that 15 requests are sent and 15 requests need to be completed. Even if the front end is not awaiting the first 14 results, the API is still doing all the 15 requests.
A cancellation token simply tells the API to drop the unused threads.
I would like to chime in on this because most answers although good, do not point to a definite time when to use and when not.
From my experience, if you are developing anything with a front-end, add async/await to your methods when expecting output from other threads to be input to your UI. This is the best strategy for handling multithread output and Microsoft should be commended to come out with this when they did. Without async/await you would have to add more code to handle thread output to UI (e.g Event, Event Handler, Delegate, Event Subscription, Marshaller).
Don't need it anywhere else except if using strategically for slow peripherals.
We could abort a Thread like this:
Thread thread = new Thread(SomeMethod);
.
.
.
thread.Abort();
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
The guidance on not using a thread abort is controversial. I think there is still a place for it but in exceptional circumstance. However you should always attempt to design around it and see it as a last resort.
Example;
You have a simple windows form application that connects to a blocking synchronous web service. Within which it executes a function on the web service within a Parallel loop.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
});
Say in this example, the blocking call takes 2 mins to complete. Now I set my MaxDegreeOfParallelism to say ProcessorCount. iListOfItems has 1000 items within it to process.
The user clicks the process button and the loop commences, we have 'up-to' 20 threads executing against 1000 items in the iListOfItems collection. Each iteration executes on its own thread. Each thread will utilise a foreground thread when created by Parallel.ForEach. This means regardless of the main application shutdown, the app domain will be kept alive until all threads have finished.
However the user needs to close the application for some reason, say they close the form.
These 20 threads will continue to execute until all 1000 items are processed. This is not ideal in this scenario, as the application will not exit as the user expects and will continue to run behind the scenes, as can be seen by taking a look in task manger.
Say the user tries to rebuild the app again (VS 2010), it reports the exe is locked, then they would have to go into task manager to kill it or just wait until all 1000 items are processed.
I would not blame you for saying, but of course! I should be cancelling these threads using the CancellationTokenSource object and calling Cancel ... but there are some problems with this as of .net 4.0. Firstly this is still never going to result in a thread abort which would offer up an abort exception followed by thread termination, so the app domain will instead need to wait for the threads to finish normally, and this means waiting for the last blocking call, which would be the very last running iteration (thread) that ultimately gets to call po.CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested.
In the example this would mean the app domain could still stay alive for up to 2 mins, even though the form has been closed and cancel called.
Note that Calling Cancel on CancellationTokenSource does not throw an exception on the processing thread(s), which would indeed act to interrupt the blocking call similar to a thread abort and stop the execution. An exception is cached ready for when all the other threads (concurrent iterations) eventually finish and return, the exception is thrown in the initiating thread (where the loop is declared).
I chose not to use the Cancel option on a CancellationTokenSource object. This is wasteful and arguably violates the well known anti-patten of controlling the flow of the code by Exceptions.
Instead, it is arguably 'better' to implement a simple thread safe property i.e. Bool stopExecuting. Then within the loop, check the value of stopExecuting and if the value is set to true by the external influence, we can take an alternate path to close down gracefully. Since we should not call cancel, this precludes checking CancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested which would otherwise be another option.
Something like the following if condition would be appropriate within the loop;
if (loopState.ShouldExitCurrentIteration || loopState.IsExceptional || stopExecuting) {loopState.Stop(); return;}
The iteration will now exit in a 'controlled' manner as well as terminating further iterations, but as I said, this does little for our issue of having to wait on the long running and blocking call(s) that are made within each iteration (parallel loop thread), since these have to complete before each thread can get to the option of checking if it should stop.
In summary, as the user closes the form, the 20 threads will be signaled to stop via stopExecuting, but they will only stop when they have finished executing their long running function call.
We can't do anything about the fact that the application domain will always stay alive and only be released when all foreground threads have completed. And this means there will be a delay associated with waiting for any blocking calls made within the loop to complete.
Only a true thread abort can interrupt the blocking call, and you must mitigate leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state the best you can in the aborted thread's exception handler which goes without question. Whether that's appropriate is a matter for the programmer to decide, based on what resource handles they chose to maintain and how easy it is to close them in a thread's finally block. You could register with a token to terminate on cancel as a semi workaround i.e.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
using (cts.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
Try
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
}
Catch(ThreadAbortException ex)
{
// log etc.
}
Finally
{
// clean up here
}
}
});
but this will still result in an exception in the declaring thread.
All things considered, interrupt blocking calls using the parallel.loop constructs could have been a method on the options, avoiding the use of more obscure parts of the library. But why there is no option to cancel and avoid throwing an exception in the declaring method strikes me as a possible oversight.
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by
cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
Other answerers have told you not to do it. But yes, you can do it. You can supply Thread.Abort() as the delegate to be called by the Task's cancellation mechanism. Here is how you could configure this:
class HardAborter
{
public bool WasAborted { get; private set; }
private CancellationTokenSource Canceller { get; set; }
private Task<object> Worker { get; set; }
public void Start(Func<object> DoFunc)
{
WasAborted = false;
// start a task with a means to do a hard abort (unsafe!)
Canceller = new CancellationTokenSource();
Worker = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
// specify this thread's Abort() as the cancel delegate
using (Canceller.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
return DoFunc();
}
}
catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
WasAborted = true;
return false;
}
}, Canceller.Token);
}
public void Abort()
{
Canceller.Cancel();
}
}
disclaimer: don't do this.
Here is an example of what not to do:
var doNotDoThis = new HardAborter();
// start a thread writing to the console
doNotDoThis.Start(() =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
Console.Write(".");
}
return null;
});
// wait a second to see some output and show the WasAborted value as false
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted);
// wait another second, abort, and print the time
Thread.Sleep(1000);
doNotDoThis.Abort();
Console.WriteLine("Abort triggered at " + DateTime.Now);
// wait until the abort finishes and print the time
while (!doNotDoThis.WasAborted) { Thread.CurrentThread.Join(0); }
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted + " at " + DateTime.Now);
Console.ReadKey();
You shouldn't use Thread.Abort()
Tasks can be Cancelled but not aborted.
The Thread.Abort() method is (severely) deprecated.
Both Threads and Tasks should cooperate when being stopped, otherwise you run the risk of leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state.
If you do need to run a Process and kill it from the outside, the only safe option is to run it in a separate AppDomain.
This answer is about .net 3.5 and earlier.
Thread-abort handling has been improved since then, a.o. by changing the way finally blocks work.
But Thread.Abort is still a suspect solution that you should always try to avoid.
And in .net Core (.net 5+) Thread.Abort() will now throw a PlatformNotSupportedException .
Kind of underscoring the 'deprecated' point.
Everyone knows (hopefully) its bad to terminate thread. The problem is when you don't own a piece of code you're calling. If this code is running in some do/while infinite loop , itself calling some native functions, etc. you're basically stuck. When this happens in your own code termination, stop or Dispose call, it's kinda ok to start shooting the bad guys (so you don't become a bad guy yourself).
So, for what it's worth, I've written those two blocking functions that use their own native thread, not a thread from the pool or some thread created by the CLR. They will stop the thread if a timeout occurs:
// returns true if the call went to completion successfully, false otherwise
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(action, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (action == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var success = false;
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
action();
success = true;
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return success;
}
// returns what's the function should return if the call went to completion successfully, default(T) otherwise
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(func, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (func == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(func));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var item = default(T);
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
item = func();
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return item;
}
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool TerminateThread(IntPtr hThread, int dwExitCode);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern IntPtr CreateThread(IntPtr lpThreadAttributes, IntPtr dwStackSize, Delegate lpStartAddress, IntPtr lpParameter, int dwCreationFlags, out int lpThreadId);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool CloseHandle(IntPtr hObject);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern int WaitForSingleObject(IntPtr hHandle, int dwMilliseconds);
While it's possible to abort a thread, in practice it's almost always a very bad idea to do so. Aborthing a thread means the thread is not given a chance to clean up after itself, leaving resources undeleted, and things in unknown states.
In practice, if you abort a thread, you should only do so in conjunction with killing the process. Sadly, all too many people think ThreadAbort is a viable way of stopping something and continuing on, it's not.
Since Tasks run as threads, you can call ThreadAbort on them, but as with generic threads you almost never want to do this, except as a last resort.
I faced a similar problem with Excel's Application.Workbooks.
If the application is busy, the method hangs eternally. My approach was simply to try to get it in a task and wait, if it takes too long, I just leave the task be and go away (there is no harm "in this case", Excel will unfreeze the moment the user finishes whatever is busy).
In this case, it's impossible to use a cancellation token. The advantage is that I don't need excessive code, aborting threads, etc.
public static List<Workbook> GetAllOpenWorkbooks()
{
//gets all open Excel applications
List<Application> applications = GetAllOpenApplications();
//this is what we want to get from the third party library that may freeze
List<Workbook> books = null;
//as Excel may freeze here due to being busy, we try to get the workbooks asynchronously
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
books = applications
.SelectMany(app => app.Workbooks.OfType<Workbook>()).ToList();
}
catch { }
});
//wait for task completion
task.Wait(5000);
return books; //handle outside if books is null
}
This is my implementation of an idea presented by #Simon-Mourier, using the dotnet thread, short and simple code:
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds)
{
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var success = false;
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
action();
success = true;
});
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
thread.Join(milliseconds);
thread.Abort();
return success;
}
You can "abort" a task by running it on a thread you control and aborting that thread. This causes the task to complete in a faulted state with a ThreadAbortException. You can control thread creation with a custom task scheduler, as described in this answer. Note that the caveat about aborting a thread applies.
(If you don't ensure the task is created on its own thread, aborting it would abort either a thread-pool thread or the thread initiating the task, neither of which you typically want to do.)
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
...
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = Task.Run(() => { while (true) { } });
Parallel.Invoke(() =>
{
task.Wait(cts.Token);
}, () =>
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
cts.Cancel();
});
This is a simple snippet to abort a never-ending task with CancellationTokenSource.
This might be simple, but couldn't figure it out yet.
Simply put:
I have a long running operation (about 8 min) in my repo layer.
public static ReleaseSelection LoadedReleaseSelection = new ReleaseSelection();
private static object s_cacheLock = new object();
public Long Load(ReleaseSelection releaseSelection)
{
//check if the release passed in to load is different the one previously loaded
if (releaseSelection != LoadedReleaseSelection)
{
//do something to break the lock(s_cacheLock)
}
lock (s_cacheLock)
{
//Reads from TAB files and put them into cache objects.. runs for about 8 mins
LoadedReleaseSelection = releaseSelection;
}
}
a service layer calls the Load asynchronously
public Task<long> LoadAsync()
{
ReleaseSelection releaseSelection = //get value from db through another repo call
if (releaseSelection == null)
{
return null;
}
return Task.Factory.StartNew(() => m_releaseRepository.Load(releaseSelection));
}
finally, this service is being called by an API endpoint
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> ReleaseLoadPost()
{
await m_releaseService.LoadAsync();
return Ok();
}
how I can come about canceling the lock(s_cacheLock) inside Load operation (first code block) when the following condition is true
//check if the release passed in to load is different the one previously loaded
if (releaseSelection != LoadedReleaseSelection)
{
//do something to break the lock(s_cacheLock)
}
so that another thread won't have to wait till previous load has been completed?
Note: I need the lock(m_cacheLock) because I have other methods that read from the caches and should really not do that until all caches are loaded.
There is no need to use lock to protect the 8 mins load process, what you need is just lock the update cache set statement after the load complete. You should also make the load process cancellable by using a CancellationToken and check the token cancellation status periodically during the load process.
Use Monitor.Enter & Monitor.Exit instead of lock, make sure to catch exceptions and release the lock.
Example:
Monitor.Enter(s_cacheLock)
// do work
Monitor.Exit(s_cacheLock)
In my application I have the need to continually process some piece(s) of Work on some set interval(s). I had originally written a Task to continually check a given Task.Delay to see if it was completed, if so the Work would be processed that corresponded to that Task.Delay. The draw back to this method is the Task that checks these Task.Delays would be in a psuedo-infinite loop when no Task.Delay is completed.
To solve this problem I found that I could create a "recursive Task" (I am not sure what the jargon for this would be) that processes the work at the given interval as needed.
// New Recurring Work can be added by simply creating
// the Task below and adding an entry into this Dictionary.
// Recurring Work can be removed/stopped by looking
// it up in this Dictionary and calling its CTS.Cancel method.
private readonly object _LockRecurWork = new object();
private Dictionary<Work, Tuple<Task, CancellationTokenSource> RecurringWork { get; set; }
...
private Task CreateRecurringWorkTask(Work workToDo, CancellationTokenSource taskTokenSource)
{
return Task.Run(async () =>
{
// Do the Work, then wait the prescribed amount of time before doing it again
DoWork(workToDo);
await Task.Delay(workToDo.RecurRate, taskTokenSource.Token);
// If this Work's CancellationTokenSource is not
// cancelled then "schedule" the next Work execution
if (!taskTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
lock(_LockRecurWork)
{
RecurringWork[workToDo] = new Tuple<Task, CancellationTokenSource>
(CreateRecurringWorkTask(workToDo, taskTokenSource), taskTokenSource);
}
}
}, taskTokenSource.Token);
}
Should/Could this be represented with a chain of Task.ContinueWith? Would there be any benefit to such an implementation? Is there anything majorly wrong with the current implementation?
Yes!
Calling ContinueWith tells the Task to call your code as soon as it finishes. This is far faster than manually polling it.
I have an application which handles data from text file - it reads a line from the file then handles it and then puts a result in another file. After handling one row it handles the next one until the whole file is done. Some rows from the file is very time-consuming for handling. So I decided to put handling-logic in separate thread and if handling takes longer then 10 sec. I kill the thread. So my code is like this:
public class Handler
{
public void Handle(string row)
{
// Perform handling
}
}
public class Program
{
private static bool HandleRow(string row)
{
Task task = new Task(() => new Handler().Handle(row));
task.Start(); // updated
var waitResult = task.Wait(timeout); // timeout is 10 sec.
if(waitResult == false || task.IsFaulted)
return false;
return true;
}
public static void Main()
{
foreach(var row in GetRowsToHandle())
HandleRow(row);
}
}
but somehow when running the program I get out of memory exception. It seems that memory is not released properly.
Does anyone know why memory leaks might happen?
UPDATED
I forgot to include task.Start() in my code sniffer. Now I put it there
Task is Disposable : task.Dispose();
Your 10s timeout only times out the task. It doesn't stop Handle() from executing (if indeed it ever starts - I can't see a Start there). It just means you locally see a timeout on task.
Also, it depends in part on what GetRowsToHandle() does - does it return a non-buffered sequence, or is it a list, etc.
While Task does support cancellation, this requires co-operation from the implementation. To be honest, since you aren't doing anything async you might be better off just handling your own "have I taken too long" basic timeout in Handle(). A thread-abort (the other option) is not to be recommended.