Develop Reference

Are non-thread-safe functions async safe?

Consider the following async function that modifies a non-thread-safe list:
async Task AddNewToList(List<Item> list)
{
// Suppose load takes a few seconds
Item item = await LoadNextItem();
list.Add(item);
}
Simply put: Is this safe?
My concern is that one may invoke the async method, and then while it's loading (either on another thread, or as an I/O operation), the caller may modify the list.
Suppose that the caller is partway through the execution of list.Clear(), for example, and suddenly the Load method finishes! What will happen?
Will the task immediately interrupt and run the list.Add(item); code? Or will it wait until the main thread is done with all scheduled CPU tasks (ie: wait for Clear() to finish), before running the code?
Edit: Since I've basically answered this for myself below, here's a bonus question: Why? Why does it immediately interrupt instead of waiting for CPU bound operations to complete? It seems counter-intuitive to not queue itself up, which would be completely safe.
Edit: Here's a different example I tested myself. The comments indicate the order of execution. I am disappointed!
TaskCompletionSource<bool> source;
private async void buttonPrime_click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
source = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>(); // 1
await source.Task; // 2
source = null; // 4
}
private void buttonEnd_click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
source.SetResult(true); // 3
MessageBox.Show(source.ToString()); // 5 and exception is thrown
}

No, its not safe. However also consider that the caller might also have spawned a thread and passed the List to its child thread before calling your code, even in a non async environment, which will have the same detrimental effect.
So; although not safe, there is nothing inherently thread-safe about receiving a List from a caller anyway - there is no way of knowing whether the list is actually being processed from other threads that your own.

Short answer
You always need to be careful using async.
Longer answer
It depends on your SynchronizationContext and TaskScheduler, and what you mean by "safe."
When your code awaits something, it creates a continuation and wraps it in a task, which is then posted to the current SynchronizationContext's TaskScheduler. The context will then determine when and where the continuation will run. The default scheduler simply uses the thread pool, but different types of applications can extend the scheduler and provide more sophisticated synchronization logic.
If you are writing an application that has no SynchronizationContext (for example, a console application, or anything in .NET core), the continuation is simply put on the thread pool, and could execute in parallel with your main thread. In this case you must use lock or synchronized objects such as ConcurrentDictionary<> instead of Dictionary<>, for anything other than local references or references that are closed with the task.
If you are writing a WinForms application, the continuations are put in the message queue, and will all execute on the main thread. This makes it safe to use non-synchronized objects. However, there are other worries, such as deadlocks. And of course if you spawn any threads, you must make sure they use lock or Concurrent objects, and any UI invocations must be marshaled back to the UI thread. Also, if you are nutty enough to write a WinForms application with more than one message pump (this is highly unusual) you'd need to worry about synchronizing any common variables.
If you are writing an ASP.NET application, the SynchronizationContext will ensure that, for a given request, no two threads are executing at the same time. Your continuation might run on a different thread (due to a performance feature known as thread agility), but they will always have the same SynchronizationContext and you are guaranteed that no two threads will access your variables at the same time (assuming, of course, they are not static, in which case they span across HTTP requests and must be synchronized). In addition, the pipeline will block parallel requests for the same session so that they execute in series, so your session state is also protected from threading concerns. However you still need to worry about deadlocks.
And of course you can write your own SynchronizationContext and assign it to your threads, meaning that you specify your own synchronization rules that will be used with async.
See also How do yield and await implement flow of control in .NET?

Assuming the "invalid acces" occures in LoadNextItem(): The Task will throw an exception. Since the context is captured it will pass on to the callers thread so list.Add will not be reached.
So, no it's not thread-safe.

Yes I think that could be a problem.
I would return item and add to the list on the main tread.
private async void GetIntButton(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<int> Ints = new List<int>();
Ints.Add(await GetInt());
}
private async Task<int> GetInt()
{
await Task.Delay(100);
return 1;
}
But you have to call from and async so I do not this this would work either.

async and await without "threads"? Can I customize what happens under-the-hood?

I have a question about how customizable the new async/await keywords and the Task class in C# 4.5 are.
First some background for understanding my problem: I am developing on a framework with the following design:
One thread has a list of "current things to do" (usually around 100 to 200 items) which are stored as an own data structure and hold as a list. It has an Update() function that enumerates the list and look whether some "things" need to execute and does so. Basically its like a big thread sheduler. To simplify things, lets assume the "things to do" are functions that return the boolean true when they are "finished" (and should not be called next Update) and false when the sheduler should call them again next update.
All the "things" must not run concurrently and also must run in this one thread (because of thread static variables)
There are other threads which do other stuff. They are structured in the same way: Big loop that iterates a couple of hundret things to do in a big Update() - function.
Threads can send each other messages, including "remote procedure calls". For these remote calls, the RPC system is returning some kind of future object to the result value. In the other thread, a new "thing to do" is inserted.
A common "thing" to do are just sequences of RPCs chained together. At the moment, the syntax for this "chaining" is very verbose and complicated, since you manually have to check for the completion state of previous RPCs and invoke the next ones etc..
An example:
Future f1, f2;
bool SomeThingToDo() // returns true when "finished"
{
if (f1 == null)
f1 = Remote1.CallF1();
else if (f1.IsComplete && f2 == null)
f2 = Remote2.CallF2();
else if (f2 != null && f2.IsComplete)
return true;
return false;
}
Now this all sound awefull like async and await of C# 5.0 can help me here. I haven't 100% fully understand what it does under the hood (any good references?), but as I get it from some few talks I've watched, it exactly does what I want with this nicely simple code:
async Task SomeThingToDo() // returning task is completed when this is finished.
{
await Remote1.CallF1();
await Remote2.CallF2();
}
But I can't find a way how write my Update() function to make something like this happen. async and await seem to want to use the Task - class which in turn seems to need real threads?
My closest "solution" so far:
The first thread (which is running SomeThingToDo) calls their functions only once and stores the returned task and tests on every Update() whether the task is completed.
Remote1.CallF1 returns a new Task with an empty Action as constructor parameter and remembers the returned task. When F1 is actually finished, it calls RunSynchronously() on the task to mark it as completed.
That seems to me like a pervertion of the task system. And beside, it creates shared memory (the Task's IsComplete boolean) between the two threads which I would like to have replaced with our remote messanging system, if possible.
Finally, it does not solve my problem as it does not work with the await-like SomeThingToDo implementation above. It seems the auto-generated Task objects returned by an async function are completed immediately?
So finally my questions:
Can I hook into async/await to use my own implementations instead of Task<T>?
If that's not possible, can I use Task without anything that relates to "blocking" and "threads"?
Any good reference what exactly happens when I write async and await?

I haven't 100% fully understand what it does under the hood - any good references?
Back when we were designing the feature Mads, Stephen and I wrote some articles at a variety of different levels for MSDN magazine. The links are here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2011/10/03/async-articles.aspx
Start with my article, then Mads's, then Stephen's.
It seems the auto-generated Task objects returned by an async function are completed immediately?
No, they are completed when the code in the method body returns or throws, same as any other code.
Can I hook into async/await to use my own implementations instead of Task<T>?
A method which contains an await must return void, Task or Task<T>. However, the expression that is awaited can return any type so long as you can call GetAwaiter() on it. That need not be a Task.
If that's not possible, can I use Task without anything that relates to "blocking" and "threads"?
Absolutely. A Task just represents work that will complete in the future. Though that work is typically done on another thread, there is no requirement.

To answer your questions:
Can I hook into async/await to use my own implementations instead of Task?
Yes. You can await anything. However, I do not recommend this.
If that's not possible, can I use Task without anything that relates to "blocking" and "threads"?
The Task type represents a future. It does not necessarily "run" on a thread; it can represent the completion of a download, or a timer expiring, etc.
Any good reference what exactly happens when I write async and await?
If you mean as far as code transformations go, this blog post has a nice side-by-side. It's not 100% accurate in its details, but it's enough to write a simple custom awaiter.
If you really want to twist async to do your bidding, Jon Skeet's eduasync series is the best resource. However, I seriously do not recommend you do this in production.
You may find my async/await intro helpful as an introduction to the async concepts and recommended ways to use them. The official MSDN documentation is also unusually good.
I did write the AsyncContext and AsyncContextThread classes that may work for your situation; they define a single-threaded context for async/await methods. You can queue work (or send messages) to an AsyncContextThread by using its Factory property.

Can I hook into async/await to use my own implementations instead of Task?
Yes.
If that's not possible, can I use Task without anything that relates to "blocking" and "threads"?
Yes.
Any good reference what exactly happens when I write async and await?
Yes.
I would discourage you from asking yes/no questions. You probably don't just want yes/no answers.
async and await seem to want to use the Task - class which in turn seems to need real threads?
Nope, that's not true. A Task represents something that can be completed at some point in the future, possibly with a result. It's sometimes the result of some computation in another thread, but it doesn't need to be. It can be anything that is happening at some point in the future. For example, it could be the result of an IO operation.
Remote1.CallF1 returns a new Task with an empty Action as constructor parameter and remembers the returned task. When F1 is actually finished, it calls RunSynchronously() on the task to mark it as completed.
So what you're missing here is the TaskCompletionSource class. With that missing puzzle piece a lot should fit into place. You can create the TCS object, pass the Task from it's Task property around to...whomever, and then use the SetResult property to signal it's completion. Doing this doesn't result in the creation of any additional threads, or use the thread pool.
Note that if you don't have a result and just want a Task instead of a Task<T> then just use a TaskCompletionSource<bool> or something along those lines and then SetResult(false) or whatever is appropriate. By casting the Task<bool> to a Task you can hide that implementation from the public API.
That should also provide the "How" variations of the first two questions that you asked instead of the "can I" versions you asked. You can use a TaskCompletionSource to generate a task that is completed whenever you say it is, using whatever asynchronous construct you want, which may or may not involve the use of additional threads.

async await and shared objects

I'm using the async / await pattern to perform some CPU heavy operations on an object (my method is awaitable), which works as supposed without blocking the UI thread.
However, when i pass the object as a parameter to the ctor of a new window (the new window is a logging window that needs access to the processed object), my UI thread blocks (which I kinda understand why).
to get around this I could wrap the execution of the calculation in a
Task.Run(async () => { await _myObject.PerformCalculations(); });
and then simply call
var logWindow = new LogWindow(_myObject);
logWindow.Show();
This works (of course) but i have a lot of dispatcher calls when the object raises events, which I wouldn't have to deal with if I could do without the Task.Run call.
So, my question is, can I somehow do without the Task.Run call and still pass the object to the logging window without blocking my UI thread?
EDIT
I'm sorry for the stripped down example, I actually intended to make the question as simple as possible to understand and failed miserably.
In a more general way: I have an object that raises events on certain conditions. When an event is raised, I want to perform updates on the UI. An event always fires from the thread that was created using Task.Run(...). Hence, dispatcher calls to the UI thread. So, I want to perform the calculations using async / await (already works) and pass the object to my logging window (blocks).
When I use Task.Run, everything works of course, but wherever I subscribe to an event of the object from the UI thread I have to use dispatcher calls to the UI thread, because the event fires from the thread that Task.Run created. These dispatcher calls I would like to avoid. In fact, if I wouldn't pass the object to the logging window, and call the Show() method, the UI thread wouldn't block and everything would work as supposed. No dispatcher calls needed in the event handlers.

It's kind of hard to get a clear picture of your situation. But it looks to me like you could do with some refactoring.
Consider PerformCalculations: this is a method returning Task (thus advertising itself as async-friendly) that does heavy CPU usage (thus not actually being async-friendly). The first thing I would look at is dividing up the logic in PerformCalculations so that the CPU-bound portions use their own Task.Run, leaving PerformCalcuations as an async method that doesn't (directly) hit the CPU:
public async Task PerformCalculationsAsync()
{
while (...)
{
await Task.Run(<next calculations>);
RaiseEvent();
}
}
The point of this refactoring is to divide the CPU code in Task.Run from the UI-ish code raising events. Also consider using the standard IProgress<T> approach if your events are logically progress updates or if this kind of refactoring would be too difficult for your code; IProgress<T>.Report can be called from any thread.
You may also find my posts on async constructors and async properties (particularly the data-binding section) to be helpful.

// awaitable as well - await this in another async void/Task method (e.g. commanding)
public async Task MyAsyncProcess()
{
await _myObject.PerformCalculations();
var logWindow = new LogWindow(_myObject);
}
Task.Run() executes an asynchronous method synchronously, so in this case you pretty much lack of use of the async/await pattern. Make the method where you execute your code async as well and await it somewhere else. Or alternatively use some FireAndForget logic.

C# Asynchronous Options for Processing a List

I am trying to better understand the Async and the Parallel options I have in C#. In the snippets below, I have included the 5 approaches I come across most. But I am not sure which to choose - or better yet, what criteria to consider when choosing:
Method 1: Task
(see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd321439.aspx)
Calling StartNew is functionally equivalent to creating a Task using one of its constructors and then calling Start to schedule it for execution. However, unless creation and scheduling must be separated, StartNew is the recommended approach for both simplicity and performance.
TaskFactory's StartNew method should be the preferred mechanism for creating and scheduling computational tasks, but for scenarios where creation and scheduling must be separated, the constructors may be used, and the task's Start method may then be used to schedule the task for execution at a later time.
// using System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Factory
void Do_1()
{
var _List = GetList();
_List.ForEach(i => Task.Factory.StartNew(_ => { DoSomething(i); }));
}
Method 2: QueueUserWorkItem
(see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.threadpool.getmaxthreads.aspx)
You can queue as many thread pool requests as system memory allows. If there are more requests than thread pool threads, the additional requests remain queued until thread pool threads become available.
You can place data required by the queued method in the instance fields of the class in which the method is defined, or you can use the QueueUserWorkItem(WaitCallback, Object) overload that accepts an object containing the necessary data.
// using System.Threading.ThreadPool
void Do_2()
{
var _List = GetList();
var _Action = new WaitCallback((o) => { DoSomething(o); });
_List.ForEach(x => ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(_Action));
}
Method 3: Parallel.Foreach
(see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.tasks.parallel.foreach.aspx)
The Parallel class provides library-based data parallel replacements for common operations such as for loops, for each loops, and execution of a set of statements.
The body delegate is invoked once for each element in the source enumerable. It is provided with the current element as a parameter.
// using System.Threading.Tasks.Parallel
void Do_3()
{
var _List = GetList();
var _Action = new Action<object>((o) => { DoSomething(o); });
Parallel.ForEach(_List, _Action);
}
Method 4: IAsync.BeginInvoke
(see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc190824.aspx)
BeginInvoke is asynchronous; therefore, control returns immediately to the calling object after it is called.
// using IAsync.BeginInvoke()
void Do_4()
{
var _List = GetList();
var _Action = new Action<object>((o) => { DoSomething(o); });
_List.ForEach(x => _Action.BeginInvoke(x, null, null));
}
Method 5: BackgroundWorker
(see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx)
To set up for a background operation, add an event handler for the DoWork event. Call your time-consuming operation in this event handler. To start the operation, call RunWorkerAsync. To receive notifications of progress updates, handle the ProgressChanged event. To receive a notification when the operation is completed, handle the RunWorkerCompleted event.
// using System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker
void Do_5()
{
var _List = GetList();
using (BackgroundWorker _Worker = new BackgroundWorker())
{
_Worker.DoWork += (s, arg) =>
{
arg.Result = arg.Argument;
DoSomething(arg.Argument);
};
_Worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (s, arg) =>
{
_List.Remove(arg.Result);
if (_List.Any())
_Worker.RunWorkerAsync(_List[0]);
};
if (_List.Any())
_Worker.RunWorkerAsync(_List[0]);
}
}
I suppose the obvious critieria would be:
Is any better than the other for performance?
Is any better than the other for error handling?
Is any better than the other for monitoring/feedback?
But, how do you choose?
Thanks in advance for your insights.

Going to take these in an arbitrary order:
BackgroundWorker (#5)
I like to use BackgroundWorker when I'm doing things with a UI. The advantage that it has is having the progress and completion events fire on the UI thread which means you don't get nasty exceptions when you try to change UI elements. It also has a nice built-in way of reporting progress. One disadvantage that this mode has is that if you have blocking calls (like web requests) in your work, you'll have a thread sitting around doing nothing while the work is happening. This is probably not a problem if you only think you'll have a handful of them though.
IAsyncResult/Begin/End (APM, #4)
This is a widespread and powerful but difficult model to use. Error handling is troublesome since you need to re-catch exceptions on the End call, and uncaught exceptions won't necessarily make it back to any relevant pieces of code that can handle it. This has the danger of permanently hanging requests in ASP.NET or just having errors mysteriously disappear in other applications. You also have to be vigilant about the CompletedSynchronously property. If you don't track and report this properly, the program can hang and leak resources. The flip side of this is that if you're running inside the context of another APM, you have to make sure that any async methods you call also report this value. That means doing another APM call or using a Task and casting it to an IAsyncResult to get at its CompletedSynchronously property.
There's also a lot of overhead in the signatures: You have to support an arbitrary object to pass through, make your own IAsyncResult implementation if you're writing an async method that supports polling and wait handles (even if you're only using the callback). By the way, you should only be using callback here. When you use the wait handle or poll IsCompleted, you're wasting a thread while the operation is pending.
Event-based Asynchronous Pattern (EAP)
One that was not on your list but I'll mention for the sake of completeness. It's a little bit friendlier than the APM. There are events instead of callbacks and there's less junk hanging onto the method signatures. Error handling is a little easier since it's saved and available in the callback rather than re-thrown. CompletedSynchronously is also not part of the API.
Tasks (#1)
Tasks are another friendly async API. Error handling is straightforward: the exception is always there for inspection on the callback and nobody cares about CompletedSynchronously. You can do dependencies and it's a great way to handle execution of multiple async tasks. You can even wrap APM or EAP (one type you missed) async methods in them. Another good thing about using tasks is your code doesn't care how the operation is implemented. It may block on a thread or be totally asynchronous but the consuming code doesn't care about this. You can also mix APM and EAP operations easily with Tasks.
Parallel.For methods (#3)
These are additional helpers on top of Tasks. They can do some of the work to create tasks for you and make your code more readable, if your async tasks are suited to run in a loop.
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem (#2)
This is a low-level utility that's actually used by ASP.NET for all requests. It doesn't have any built-in error handling like tasks so you have to catch everything and pipe it back up to your app if you want to know about it. It's suitable for CPU-intensive work but you don't want to put any blocking calls on it, such as a synchronous web request. That's because as long as it runs, it's using up a thread.
async / await Keywords
New in .NET 4.5, these keywords let you write async code without explicit callbacks. You can await on a Task and any code below it will wait for that async operation to complete, without consuming a thread.

Your first, third and forth examples use the ThreadPool implicitly because by default Tasks are scheduled on the ThreadPool and the TPL extensions use the ThreadPool as well, the API simply hides some of the complexity see here and here. BackgroundWorkers are part of the ComponentModel namespace because they are meant for use in UI scenarios.

Reactive extensions is another upcoming library for handling asynchronous programming, especially when it comes to composition of asynchronous events and methods.
It's not native, however it's developed by Ms labs. It's available both for .NET 3.5 and .NET 4.0 and is essentially a collection of extension methods on the .NET 4.0 introduced IObservable<T> interface.
There are a lot of examples and tutorials on their main site, and I strongly recommend checking some of them out. The pattern might seem a bit odd at first (at least for .NET programmers), but well worth it, even if it's just grasping the new concept.
The real strength of reactive extensions (Rx.NET) is when you need to compose multiple asynchronous sources and events. All operators are designed with this in mind and handles the ugly parts of asynchrony for you.
Main site: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg577609
Beginner's guide: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg577611
Examples: http://rxwiki.wikidot.com/101samples
That said, the best async pattern probably depends on what situation you're in. Some are better (simpler) for simpler stuff and some are more extensible and easier to handle when it comes to more complex scenarios. I cannot speak for all the ones you're mentioning though.

The last one is the best for 2,3 at least. It has built-in methods/properties for this.
Other variants are almost the same, just different versions/convinient wrappers

Efficient Cancel Event Implementation for Number Crunching Threads?

What is the most efficient way to create a “cancel” event in a C# program that is crunching a large set of data in a loop on a separate thread?
For now, I am simply using a cancel event that is triggered from my UI thread, which subsequently calls an “onCancel” function on the number crunching thread. That cancel function sets a variable to “true”, which the crunch loop checks periodically, e.g.
Class Cruncher {
private bool cancel = false;
public cruncher()
{
crunch();
}
private void crunch()
{
while(conditions AND !cancel) { crunch; }
dispose_resources;
}
private void onCancel()
{
cancel = true;
}
}
While I am not checking the cancel variable as often as my example above (and not actually performing a NOT cancel), I would still like to optimize this crunch method as much as possible. Any examples where this is done more efficiently would be very nice to see.

The cancel event/flag should be a volatile... I asked a very similar question to yours: Is it safe to use a boolean flag to stop a thread from running in C#
I would also recommend that when you cancel your threads you wait for all of them to cancel by using something similar to the C# version of CountDownLatch. It's useful when you want to guarantee that the thread is canceled.

It will ultimately always result in something like this - although it's important that you make your cancel variable volatile, as otherwise the worker threads may not see the change from the cancelling thread.
You've got to check something periodically unless you want to go the more drastic route of interrupting the thread (which I don't recommend). Checking a single Boolean flag isn't likely to be exactly costly... if you can do a reasonable chunk of work in each iteration of the loop (enough to dwarf the cost of the check) then that's fine.
If you ever need to perform any waiting, however (in the worker thread), then you may be able to improve matters, by using a form of waiting (e.g. Monitor.Wait) which allows the cancelling thread to wake any waiting threads up early. That won't make normal operation more efficient, but it will allow the threads to terminate more quickly in the event of cancellation.

Especially since it's UI-triggered, I would recommend just leveraging the BackgroundWorker that's already in the framework, especially since it'll nicely have the progress and done events happen on the UI thread for you (so you don't have to invoke it over yourself).
Then you can just use the CancelAsync() call. Admittedly, it's not much different than what you're already doing, just done in the framework already (and including the thread synchronization logic)
As Jon mentioned, you're still going to want to do cooperative cancellation (checking CancellationPending in your DoWork for use of BackgroundWorker) since the 'interrupt/abort the thread' option is something you want to avoid if possible.
If in .NET 4 you can use TPL and the new Cancellation support, but again it's focused on cooperative cancellation.

I recommend using the unified cancellation model that was introduced in .NET 4.0 (if .NET 4.0 is an option).
It is very efficient, and allows integrated cancellation with Task objects and Parallel LINQ.

i would do it the same way. i would also add Thread.Sleep in to the loop to yield control to the main thread.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7a2f3ay4%28VS.80%29.aspx