I have identified a bottleneck in my TCP application that I have simplified for the sake of this question.
I have a MyClient class, that represents when a client connects; also I have a MyWrapper class, that represents a client that fulfill some conditions. If a MyClientfulfill some conditions, it qualifies for wrapper.
I want to expose an method that allows the caller to await a MyWrapper, and that method should handle the negotiation and rejection of invalid MyClients:
public static async Task StartAccepting(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var wrapper = await AcceptWrapperAsync(token);
HandleWrapperAsync(wrapper);
}
}
Therefore AcceptWrapperAsync awaits a valid wrapper, and HandleWrapperAsync handles the wrapper asynchronously without blocking the thread, so AcceptWrapperAsync can get back to work as fast as it can.
How that method works internally is something like this:
public static async Task<MyWrapper> AcceptWrapperAsync(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var client = await AcceptClientAsync();
if (IsClientWrappable(client))
return new MyWrapper(client);
}
return null;
}
public static async Task<MyClient> AcceptClientAsync()
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
return new MyClient();
}
private static Boolean IsClientWrappable(MyClient client)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
return true;
}
This code simulates that there is a client connection every second, and that it takes half a second to checkout if the connection is suitable for a wrapper. AcceptWrapperAsync loops till a valid wrapper is generated, and then returns.
This approach, that works well, has a flaw. During the time that IsClientWrappable is executing, no further clients can be accepted, creating a bottleneck when lot of clients are trying to connect at the same time. I am afraid that in real life, if the server goes down while having lot of clients connected, the going up is not gonna be nice because all of them will try to connect at the same time. I know that is very difficult to connect all of them at the same time, but I would like to speed up the connection process.
Making IsClientWrappable async, would just ensure that the executing thread is not blocked till the negotiation finishes, but the execution flow is blocked anyway.
How could I improve this approach to continuously accept new clients but still be able of awaiting a wrapper using AcceptWrapperAsync?
//this loop must never be blocked
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var client = await AcceptClientAsync();
HandleClientAsync(client); //must not block
}
Task HandleClientAsync(Client client) {
if (await IsClientWrappableAsync(client)) //make async as well, don't block
await HandleWrapperAsync(new MyWrapper(client));
}
This way you move the IsClientWrappable logic out of the accept loop and into the background async workflow.
If you do not wish to make IsClientWrappable non-blocking, just wrap it with Task.Run. It is essential that HandleClientAsync does not block so that its caller doesn't either.
TPL Dataflow to the rescue. I have created a "producer/consumer" object with two queues that:
accepts inputs from "producer" and stores it in the "in" queue.
a internal asynchronous task read from the "in" queue and process the input in parallel with a given maximum degree of parallelism.
put the processed item in the "out" queue afterwards. Result or Exception.
accepts a consumer to await an item. Then can check if the processing was successful or not.
I have done some testing and it seems to work fine, I want to do more testing though:
public sealed class ProcessingResult<TOut>
where TOut : class
{
public TOut Result { get; internal set; }
public Exception Error { get; internal set; }
}
public abstract class ProcessingBufferBlock<TIn,TOut>
where TIn:class
where TOut:class
{
readonly BufferBlock<TIn> _in;
readonly BufferBlock<ProcessingResult<TOut>> _out;
readonly CancellationToken _cancellation;
readonly SemaphoreSlim _semaphore;
public ProcessingBufferBlock(Int32 boundedCapacity, Int32 degreeOfParalellism, CancellationToken cancellation)
{
_cancellation = cancellation;
_semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(degreeOfParalellism);
var options = new DataflowBlockOptions() { BoundedCapacity = boundedCapacity, CancellationToken = cancellation };
_in = new BufferBlock<TIn>(options);
_out = new BufferBlock<ProcessingResult<TOut>>(options);
StartReadingAsync();
}
private async Task StartReadingAsync()
{
await Task.Yield();
while (!_cancellation.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var incoming = await _in.ReceiveAsync(_cancellation);
ProcessThroughGateAsync(incoming);
}
}
private async Task ProcessThroughGateAsync(TIn input)
{
_semaphore.Wait(_cancellation);
Exception error=null;
TOut result=null;
try
{
result = await ProcessAsync(input);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
error = ex;
}
finally
{
if(result!=null || error!=null)
_out.Post(new ProcessingResult<TOut>() { Error = error, Result = result });
_semaphore.Release(1);
}
}
protected abstract Task<TOut> ProcessAsync(TIn input);
public void Post(TIn item)
{
_in.Post(item);
}
public Task<ProcessingResult<TOut>> ReceiveAsync()
{
return _out.ReceiveAsync();
}
}
So the example I used on the OP would be something like this:
public class WrapperProcessingQueue : ProcessingBufferBlock<MyClient, MyWrapper>
{
public WrapperProcessingQueue(Int32 boundedCapacity, Int32 degreeOfParalellism, CancellationToken cancellation)
: base(boundedCapacity, degreeOfParalellism, cancellation)
{ }
protected override async Task<MyWrapper> ProcessAsync(MyClient input)
{
await Task.Delay(5000);
if (input.Id % 3 == 0)
return null;
return new MyWrapper(input);
}
}
And then I could add MyClient objects to that queue as fast as I get them, they would be processed in parallel, and the consumer would await for the ones that pass the filter.
As I said, I want to do more testing but any feedback will be very welcomed.
Cheers.
Related
I would like to test a task that is supposed to run continuously until killed. Suppose the following method is being tested:
public class Worker
{
public async Task Run(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
// do something like claim a resource
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// catch exceptions and print to the log
}
finally
{
// release the resource
}
}
}
}
And a test case
[TestCase]
public async System.Threading.Tasks.Task Run_ShallAlwaysReleaseResources()
{
// Act
await domainStateSerializationWorker.Run(new CancellationToken());
// Assert
// assert that resource release has been called
}
The problem is that the task never terminates, because cancellation is never requested. Ultimately I would like to create a CancellationToken stub like MockRepository.GenerateStub<CancellationToken>() and tell it on which call to IsCancellationRequested return true, but CancellationToken is not a reference type so it is not possible.
So the question is how to make a test where Run executes for n iterations and then terminates? Is it possible without refactoring Run?
This depends on what is running within Run. If there is some injected dependency
For example
public interface IDependency {
Task DoSomething();
}
public class Worker {
private readonly IDependency dependency;
public Worker(IDependency dependency) {
this.dependency = dependency;
}
public async Task Run(CancellationToken cancellationToken) {
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) {
try {
// do something like claim a resource
await dependency.DoSomething();
} catch (Exception e) {
// catch exceptions and print to the log
} finally {
// release the resource
}
}
}
}
Then that can be mocked and monitored to count how many times some member has been invoked.
[TestClass]
public class WorkerTests {
[TestMethod]
public async Task Sohuld_Cancel_Run() {
//Arrange
int expectedCount = 5;
int count = 0;
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var mock = new Mock<IDependency>();
mock.Setup(_ => _.DoSomething())
.Callback(() => {
count++;
if (count == expectedCount)
cts.Cancel();
})
.Returns(() => Task.FromResult<object>(null));
var worker = new Worker(mock.Object);
//Act
await worker.Run(cts.Token);
//Assert
mock.Verify(_ => _.DoSomething(), Times.Exactly(expectedCount));
}
}
The best you can do without changing your code is cancelling after a specific amount of time. The CancellationTokenSource.CancelAfter() method makes this easy:
[TestCase]
public async System.Threading.Tasks.Task Run_ShallAlwaysReleaseResources()
{
// Signal cancellation after 5 seconds
var cts = new TestCancellationTokenSource();
cts.CancelAfter(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
// Act
await domainStateSerializationWorker.Run(cts.Token);
// Assert
// assert that resource release has been called
}
The way your code is written (checking IsCancellationRequested only once per iteration) means that the cancellation will happen after some number of complete iterations. It just won't be the same number each time.
If you want to cancel after a specific number of iterations, then your only option is to modify your code to keep track of how many iterations have happened.
I thought I might be able to create a new class that inherits from CancellationTokenSource to keep track of how many times IsCancellationRequested has been tested, but it's just not possible to do.
I need to do a work in a Task (infinite loop for monitoring) but how can I get the result of this work?
My logic to do this stuff i wrong? This is a scope problem I think.
There is an example simplified:
The variable is "first" and I want "edit"
namespace my{
public class Program{
public static void Main(string[] args){
Logic p = new Logic();
Task t = new Task(p.process);
t.Start();
Console.WriteLine(p.getVar());// result="first"
}
}
public class Logic{
public string test = "first";
public void process(){
while(true){
//If condition here
this.test = "edit";
}
}
public String getVar(){
return this.test;
}
}
}
It can be done using custom event. In your case it can be something like:
public event Action<string> OnValueChanged;
Then attach to it
p.OnValueChanged += (newValue) => Console.WriteLine(newValue);
And do not forget to fire it
this.test = "edit";
OnValueChanged?.Invoke(this.test);
Tasks aren't threads, they don't need a .Start call to start them. All examples and tutorials show the use of Task.Run or Task.StartNew for a reason - tasks are a promise that a function will execute at some point in the future and produce a result. They will run on threads pulled from a ThreadPool when a Task Scheduler decides they should. Creating cold tasks and calling .Start doesn't guarantee they will start, it simply makes the code a lot more difficult to read.
In the simplest case, polling eg a remote HTTP endpoint could be as simple as :
public static async Task Main()
{
var client=new HttpClient(serverUrl);
while(true)
{
var response=await client.GetAsync(relativeServiceUrl);
if(!response.IsSuccessStatusCode)
{
//That was an error, do something with it
}
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
There's no need to start a new Task because GetAsync is asynchronous. WCF and ADO.NET also provide asynchronous execution methods.
If there's no asynchronous method to call, or if we need to perform some heavey work before the async call, we can use Task.Run to start a method in parallel and await for it to finish:
public bool CheckThatService(string serviceUrl)
{
....
}
public static async Task Main()
{
var url="...";
//...
while(true)
{
var ok=Task.Run(()=>CheckThatService(url));
if(!ok)
{
//That was an error, do something with it
}
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
What if we want to test multiple systems in parallel? We can start multiple tasks in parallel, await all of them to complete and check their results:
public static async Task Main()
{
var urls=new[]{"...","..."};
//...
while(true)
{
var tasks=urls.Select(url=>Task.Run(()=>CheckThatService(url));
var responses=await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
foreach(var response in responses)
{
///Check the value, due something
}
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
Task.WhenAll returns an array with the results in the order the tasks were created. This allows checking the index to find the original URL. A better idea would be to return the result and url together, eg using tuples :
public static (bool ok,string url) CheckThatService(string serviceUrl)
{
....
return (true,url);
}
The code wouldn't change a lot:
var tasks=urls.Select(url=>Task.Run(()=>CheckThatService(url));
var responses=await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
foreach(var response in responses.Where(resp=>!resp.ok))
{
///Check the value, due something
}
What if we wanted to store the results from all the calls? We can't use a List or Queue because they aren't thread safe. We can use a ConcurrentQueue instead:
ConcurrentQueue<string> _results=new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
public static (bool ok,string url) CheckThatService(string serviceUrl)
{
....
_results.Enqueue(someresult);
return (true,url);
}
If we want to report progress regularly we can use IProgress<T> as shown in Enabling Progress and Cancellation in Async APIs.
We could put all the monitoring code in a separate method/class that accepts an IProgress< T> parameter with a progress object that can report success, error messages and the URL that caused them, eg :
class MonitorDTO
{
public string Url{get;set;}
public bool Success{get;set;}
public string Message{get;set;}
public MonitorDTO(string ulr,bool success,string msg)
{
//...
}
}
class MyMonitor
{
string[] _urls=url;
public MyMonitor(string[] urls)
{
_urls=url;
}
public Task Run(IProgress<MonitorDTO> progress)
{
while(true)
{
var ok=Task.Run(()=>CheckThatService(url));
if(!ok)
{
_progress.Report(new MonitorDTO(ok,url,"some message");
}
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
}
This class could be used in this way:
public static async Task Maim()
{
var ulrs=new[]{....};
var monitor=new MyMonitor(urls);
var progress=new Progress<MonitorDTO>(pg=>{
Console.WriteLine($"{pg.Success} for {pg.Url}: {pg.Message}");
});
await monitor.Run(progress);
}
Enabling Progress and Cancellation in Async APIs shows how to use the CancellationTokenSource to implement another important part of a monitoring class - cancelling it. The monitoring method could check the status of a cancellation token periodically and stop monitoring when it's raised:
public Task Run(IProgress<MonitorDTO> progress,CancellationToken ct)
{
while(!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
//...
}
}
public static async Task Maim()
{
var ulrs=new[]{....};
var monitor=new MyMonitor(urls);
var progress=new Progress<MonitorDTO>(pg=>{
Console.WriteLine($"{pg.Success} for {pg.Url}: {pg.Message}");
});
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
//Not awaiting yet!
var monitorTask=monitor.Run(progress,cts.Token);
//Keep running until the first keypress
Console.ReadKey();
//Cancel and wait for the monitoring class to gracefully stop
cts.Cancel();
await monitorTask;
In this case the loop will exit when the CancellationToken is raised. By not awaiting on MyMonitor.Run() we can keep working on the main thread until an event occurs that signals monitoring should stop.
The getVar method is executed before the process method.
Make sure that you wait until your task is finished before you call the getVar method.
Logic p = new Logic();
Task t = new Task(p.process);
t.Start();
t.Wait(); // Add this line!
Console.WriteLine(p.getVar());
If you want to learn more about the Wait method, please check this link.
I using some third-party class that have a long time work call DoLongWork().
When the user want to stop the "DoLongWork" we need to call the method StopWork().
When the DoLongWork method is working the UI need to show some loading bar.
I want to create a third-party proxy class.
In this class I will create a method called StartWork - this method will return Task and when the user is cancel the task using CancellationToken two actions will made:
1) the third-party method "StopWork" will called
2) the UI will stop the loading bar.
I try this but there is some problems catching the cancellation in the third-party proxy class and bubbling the cancellation to the ViewModel class.
public class MyViewModel
{
private CancellationTokenSource _cancellationTokenSource;
private ThirdPartyServiceProxy _thirdPartyServiceProxy = new ThirdPartyServiceProxy();
public bool IsUIInLoadingMode { get; set; }
public async void Start()
{
try
{
_cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
IsUIInLoadingMode = true;
await _thirdPartyServiceProxy.StartWork(_cancellationTokenSource.Token);
_cancellationTokenSource = null;
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)/*Issue - This never called*/
{
IsUIInLoadingMode = false;
}
}
public void Stop()
{
_cancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
}
}
public class ThirdPartyServiceProxy
{
private ThirdPartyService _thirdPartyService = new ThirdPartyService();
public Task StartWork(CancellationToken token)
{
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
_thirdPartyService.DoLongWork();
},token);
//?? - Handle when task canceld - call _thirdPartyService.StopWork();
return task;
}
}
There's a couple of common ways to observe cancellation tokens: periodic polling with ThrowIfCancellationRequested and registering callbacks with Register.
In this case, polling isn't possible, since you don't control the code in DoLongWork. So you'll have to register a callback, which is more work.
public void DoWork(CancellationToken token)
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
using (token.Register(() => _thirdPartyService.StopWork()))
_thirdPartyService.DoLongWork();
}
This wrapper assumes that DoLongWork will throw OperationCanceledException if canceled by StopWork.
The wrapper can then be invoked as:
await Task.Run(() => _thirdPartyServiceProxy.StartWork(_cancellationTokenSource.Token));
As a side note, I have switched to Task.Run; this is because StartNew is dangerous.
After spending a very frustrating and unproductive day on this, I'm posting here in search of help.
I am using a third-party library that initiates a network connection in an unknown manner (I do know however it's a managed wrapper for an unmanaged lib). It lets you know about the status of the connection by invoking an event StatusChanged(status).
Since obviously invoking the network is costly and I may not need it for my Service, I inject an AsyncLazy<Connection> which is then invoked if necessary. The Service is accessed by ParallelForEachAsync which is an extension I made to process Tasks concurrently, based on this post.
If accessed sequentially, all is well. Any concurrency, even 2 parallel tasks will result in a deadlock 90% of the time. I know it's definitely related to how the third-party lib interacts with my code because a) I am not able to reproduce the effect using the same structure but without invoking it and b) the event StatusChanged(Connecting) is received fine, at which point I assume the network operation is started and I never get a callback for StatusChanged(Connected).
Here's a as-faithful-as-possible repro of the code structure which doesn't reproduce the deadlock unfortunately.
Any ideas on how to go about resolving this?
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
AsyncContext.Run(() => MainAsync(args));
}
static async Task MainAsync(string[] args)
{
var lazy = new AsyncLazy<Connection>(() => ConnectionFactory.Create());
var service = new Service(lazy);
await Enumerable.Range(0, 100)
.ParallelForEachAsync(10, async i =>
{
await service.DoWork();
Console.WriteLine("did some work");
}, CancellationToken.None);
}
}
class ConnectionFactory
{
public static Task<Connection> Create()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<Connection>();
var session = new Session();
session.Connected += (sender, args) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("connected");
tcs.SetResult(new Connection());
};
session.Connect();
return tcs.Task;
}
}
class Connection
{
public async Task DoSomethinElse()
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
class Session
{
public event EventHandler Connected;
public void Connect()
{
Console.WriteLine("Simulate network operation with unknown scheduling");
Task.Delay(100).Wait();
Connected(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
class Service
{
private static Random r = new Random();
private readonly AsyncLazy<Connection> lazy;
public Service(AsyncLazy<Connection> lazy)
{
this.lazy = lazy;
}
public async Task DoWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("Trying to do some work, will connect");
await Task.Delay(r.Next(0, 100));
var connection = await lazy;
await connection.DoSomethinElse();
}
}
public static class AsyncExtensions
{
public static async Task<AsyncParallelLoopResult> ParallelForEachAsync<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source,
int degreeOfParallelism,
Func<T, Task> body,
CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var partitions = Partitioner.Create(source).GetPartitions(degreeOfParallelism);
bool wasBroken = false;
var tasks =
from partition in partitions
select Task.Run(async () =>
{
using (partition)
{
while (partition.MoveNext())
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Volatile.Write(ref wasBroken, true);
break;
}
await body(partition.Current);
}
}
});
await Task.WhenAll(tasks)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
return new AsyncParallelLoopResult(Volatile.Read(ref wasBroken));
}
}
public class AsyncParallelLoopResult
{
public bool IsCompleted { get; private set; }
internal AsyncParallelLoopResult(bool isCompleted)
{
IsCompleted = isCompleted;
}
}
EDIT
I think I understand why it's happening but not sure how to solve it. While the context is waiting for DoWork, DoWork is waiting for the lazy connection.
This ugly hack seems to solve it:
Connection WaitForConnection()
{
connectionLazy.Start();
var awaiter = connectionLazy.GetAwaiter();
while (!awaiter.IsCompleted)
Thread.Sleep(50);
return awaiter.GetResult();
}
Any more elegant solutions?
I suspect that the 3rd-party library is requiring some kind of STA pumping. This is fairly common with old-style asynchronous code.
I have a type AsyncContextThread that you can try, passing true to the constructor to enable manual STA pumping. AsyncContextThread is just like AsyncContext except it runs the context within a new thread (an STA thread in this case).
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var thread = new AsyncContextThread(true))
{
thread.Factory.Run(() => MainAsync(args)).Wait();
}
}
or
static void Main(string[] args)
{
AsyncContext.Run(() => async
{
using (var thread = new AsyncContextThread(true))
{
await thread.Factory.Run(() => MainAsync(args));
}
}
}
Note that AsyncContextThread will not work in all STA scenarios. I have run into issues when doing (some rather twisted) COM interop that required a true UI thread (WPF or WinForms thread); for some reason the STA pumping wasn't sufficient for those COM objects.
I am new writer to SO, pls bear with me.
I have a WCF service with a duplex service contract. This service contract has an operation contact that suppose to do long data processing. I am constrained to limit the number of concurrent data processing to let's say max 3. My problem is that after the data processing I need to get back to the same service instance context so I call back my initiator endpoint passing the data processing result. I need to mention that due to various reasons I am constrained to TPL dataflows and WCF duplex.
Here is a demo to what I wrote so far
In a console library I simulate WCF calls
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// simulate service calls
Enumerable.Range(0, 5).ToList().ForEach(x =>
{
new System.Threading.Thread(new ThreadStart(async () =>
{
var service = new Service();
await service.Inc(x);
})).Start();
});
}
}
Here is what suppose to be the WCF service
// service contract
public class Service
{
static TransformBlock<Message<int>, Message<int>> transformBlock;
static Service()
{
transformBlock = new TransformBlock<Message<int>, Message<int>>(x => Inc(x), new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 3
});
}
static Message<int> Inc(Message<int> input)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100);
return new Message<int> { Token = input.Token, Data = input.Data + 1 };
}
// operation contract
public async Task Inc(int id)
{
var token = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
transformBlock.Post(new Message<int> { Token = token, Data = id });
while (await transformBlock.OutputAvailableAsync())
{
Message<int> message;
if (transformBlock.TryReceive(m => m.Token == token, out message))
{
// do further processing using initiator service instance members
// something like Callback.IncResult(m.Data);
break;
}
}
}
}
public class Message<T>
{
public string Token { get; set; }
public T Data { get; set; }
}
The operation contract is not really necessary to be async, but I needed the OutputAvailableAsync notification.
Is this a good approach or is there a better solution for my scenario?
Thanks in advance.
First, I think you shouldn't use the token the way you do. Unique identifiers are useful when communicating between processes. But when you're inside a single process, just use reference equality.
To actually answer your question, I think the (kind of) busy loop is not a good idea.
A simpler solution for asynchronous throttling would be to use SemaphoreSlim. Something like:
static readonly SemaphoreSlim Semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(3);
// operation contract
public async Task Inc(int id)
{
await Semaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
var result = id + 1;
// do further processing using initiator service instance members
// something like Callback.IncResult(result);
}
finally
{
Semaphore.Release();
}
}
If you really want to (or have to?) use dataflow, you can use TaskCompletionSource for synchronization between the operation and the block. The operation method would wait on the Task of the TaskCompletionSource and the block would set it when it finished computation for that message:
private static readonly ActionBlock<Message<int>> Block =
new ActionBlock<Message<int>>(
x => Inc(x),
new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 3
});
static void Inc(Message<int> input)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
input.TCS.SetResult(input.Data + 1);
}
// operation contract
public async Task Inc(int id)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<int>();
Block.Post(new Message<int> { TCS = tcs, Data = id });
int result = await tcs.Task;
// do further processing using initiator service instance members
// something like Callback.IncResult(result);
}