Develop Reference

Why will the synchronous continuations no longer be executed synchronously?

In the following article, Stephen Toub describes how to build a ManualResetEvent using the TPL. In particular, he states that in the following method:
public void Set()
{
var tcs = m_tcs;
Task.Factory.StartNew(
s => ((TaskCompletionSource<bool>)s).TrySetResult(true),
tcs,
CancellationToken.None,
TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness,
TaskScheduler.Default);
tcs.Task.Wait();
}
the tcs.Task.Wait() will "block until the task being completed is actually finished (not including the task’s synchronous continuations, just the task itself)". Why won't we block on any synchronous continuations? That is, what will prevent any synchronous continuations on any Tasks awaiting tcs.Task's completion from executing synchronously?

He means that if you do is this way:
public void Set()
{
m_tsc.TrySetResult(true);
}
Then all synchronous continuations of TaskCompletionSource Task will run synchronously on this same thread, blocking Set method for the duration.
However if you do it the way described in your question, then all those continuations will still run, but on thread pool thread, because that's where you execute TrySetResult. As soon as TaskCompletionSource task completes - your tcs.Task.Wait() will return, before synchronous continuations will run. So in effect, Set method will not block waiting for them to complete.

This is because the work in ContinueWith is a different task. All ContinueWith variants say:
Returns
A new continuation Task.
and in the Remarks we can read:
Remarks
The returned Task will not be scheduled for execution until the current task has completed.
BTW. These days ContinueWith is discouraged and await is preferred in almost all cases.

the tcs.Task.Wait() will "block until the task being completed is actually finished (not including the task’s synchronous continuations, just the task itself)". Why won't we block on any synchronous continuations? That is, what will prevent any synchronous continuations on any Tasks awaiting tcs.Task's completion from executing synchronously?
Your question is about Tasks in general, not about the TaskCompletionSource.Task in particular. The answer is that when an incomplete Task is waited, the Wait is performed by a ManualResetEventSlim, which is Set by a task continuation, which is prioritized in front of all other continuations that might be attached previously. Here is a part of the private SpinThenBlockingWait method, from the Task.cs source code:
private bool SpinThenBlockingWait(int millisecondsTimeout,
CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
bool infiniteWait = millisecondsTimeout == Timeout.Infinite;
uint startTimeTicks = infiniteWait ? 0 : (uint)Environment.TickCount;
bool returnValue = SpinWait(millisecondsTimeout);
if (!returnValue)
{
var mres = new SetOnInvokeMres();
try
{
AddCompletionAction(mres, addBeforeOthers: true);
if (infiniteWait)
{
bool notifyWhenUnblocked = ThreadPool.NotifyThreadBlocked();
try
{
returnValue = mres.Wait(Timeout.Infinite, cancellationToken);
//...
This method is invoked internally by the Wait, when the task is not complete at the moment, and the current thread must be blocked. The SetOnInvokeMres is a small class that inherits from the ManualResetEventSlim:
private sealed class SetOnInvokeMres : ManualResetEventSlim, ITaskCompletionAction
{
internal SetOnInvokeMres() : base(false, 0) { }
public void Invoke(Task completingTask) { Set(); }
public bool InvokeMayRunArbitraryCode => false;
}
The interesting point is the addBeforeOthers: true argument. This ensures that the ManualResetEventSlim will be signaled before invoking any continuation that is associated with user-supplied code. The Task Parallel Library exposes no public API that allows to attach a continuation with addBeforeOthers: true. Actually this parameter seems to exist exclusively for supporting the signaling of ManualResetEventSlims with priority.

Async method blocking on unawaited task

In my current project, I have a piece of code that, after simplifying it down to where I'm having issues, looks something like this:
private async Task RunAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
bool finished = false;
while (!cancel.IsCancellationRequested && !finished)
finished = await FakeTask();
}
private Task<bool> FakeTask()
{
return Task.FromResult(false);
}
If I use this code without awaiting, I end up blocking anyway:
// example 1
var task = RunAsync(cancel); // Code blocks here...
... // Other code that could run while RunAsync is doing its thing, but is forced to wait
await task;
// example 2
var task = RunAsync(cancelSource.Token); // Code blocks here...
cancelSource.Cancel(); // Never called
In the actual project, I'm not actually using FakeTask, and there usually will be some Task.Delay I'm awaiting in there, so the code most of the time doesn't actually block, or only for a limited amount of iterations.
In unit testing, however, I'm using a mock object that does pretty much do what FakeTask does, so when I want to see if RunAsync responds to its CancellationToken getting cancelled the way I expect it to, I'm stuck.
I have found I can fix this issue by adding for example await Task.Delay(1) at the top of RunAsync, to force it to truly run asynchronous, but this feels a bit hacky. Are there better alternatives?

You have an incorrect mental picture of what await does. The meaning of await is:
Check to see if the awaitable object is complete. If it is, fetch its result and continue executing the coroutine.
If it is not complete, sign up the remainder of the current method as the continuation of the awaitable and suspend the coroutine by returning control to the caller. (Note that this makes it a semicoroutine.)
In your program, the "fake" awaitable is always complete, so there is never a suspension of the coroutine.
Are there better alternatives?
If your control flow logic requires you to suspend the coroutine then use Task.Yield.

Task.FromResult actually runs synchronously, as would await Task.Delay(0). If you want to actually simulate asynchronous code, call Task.Yield(). That creates an awaitable task that asynchronously yields back to the current context when awaited.

As #SLaks said, your code will run synchronously. One thing is running async code, and another thing is running parallel code.
If you need to run your code in parallel you can use Task.Run.
class Program
{
static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
var tcs = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = Task.Run(() => RunAsync("1", tcs.Token));
var task2 = Task.Run(() => RunAsync("2", tcs.Token));
await Task.Delay(1000);
tcs.Cancel();
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static async Task RunAsync(string source, CancellationToken cancel)
{
bool finished = false;
while (!cancel.IsCancellationRequested && !finished)
finished = await FakeTask(source);
}
private static Task<bool> FakeTask(string source)
{
Console.WriteLine(source);
return Task.FromResult(false);
}
}

C#'s async methods execute synchronously up to the point where they have to wait for a result.
In your example there is no such point where the method has to wait for a result, so the loop keeps running forever and thereby blocking the caller.
Inserting an await Task.Yield() to simulate some real async work should help.

Best way to return from an async void method if an awaited task is canceled [duplicate]

In our application we work a lot with async / await and Tasks. Therefore it does use Task.Run a lot, sometimes with cancellation support using the built in CancellationToken.
public Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}, cancellationToken);
}
If i do now cancel the execution using the CancellationToken the execution does stop at the beginning of the next loop, or if the Task did not start at all it throws an exception (TaskCanceledException inside Task.Run). The question is now why does Task.Run use an Exception to control successful cancellation instead of just returning a completed Task. Is there any specific reason MS did not stick to the "Do NOT use exceptions to control execution flow" rule?.
And how can i avoid Boxing every method that supports cancellation (which are a lot) in an completely useless try catch (TaskCancelledException) block?

Well, you can't really see the difference in your very simple scenario - you're not actually using the result of the Task, and you don't need to propagate the cancellation through a complex call stack.
First, your Task might return a value. What do you return when the operation was cancelled?
Second, there may be other tasks that follow your cancelled task. You probably want to propagate the cancellation through the other tasks at your convenience.
Exceptions propagate. Task cancellation is pretty much identical to Thread.Abort in this usage - when you issue a Thread.Abort, a ThreadAbortException is used to make sure you unwind all the way back to the top. Otherwise, all of your methods would have to check the result of every method they call, check if they were cancelled, and return themselves if needed - and we've already seen that people will ignore error return values in old-school C :)
In the end, task cancellation, just like thread aborts, is an exceptional scenario. It already involves synchronization, stack unwinding etc.
However, this doesn't mean you necessarily have to use try-catch to catch the exception - you can use task states. For example, you can use a helper function like this:
public static Task<T> DefaultIfCanceled<T>(this Task<T> #this, T defaultValue = default(T))
{
return
#this.ContinueWith
(
t =>
{
if (t.IsCanceled) return defaultValue;
return t.Result;
}
);
}
Which you can use as
await SomeAsync().DefaultIfCanceled();
Of course, it should be noted that noöne is forcing you to use this method of cancellation - it's simply provided as a convenience. For example, you could use your own amplified type to preserve the cancellation information, and handle the cancellation manually. But when you start doing that, you'll find the reason why cancellation is handled using exceptions - doing this in imperative code is a pain, so you'll either waste a lot of effort for no gain, or you'll switch to a more functional way of programming (come, we have cookies!*).
(*) Disclaimer: We don't actually have cookies. But you can make your own!

The exception is thrown for a purpose as others in the community have already pointed it out.
However, if you would like to have more control over TaskCanceledException behaviour and still have the logic isolated to one place you may implement an Extension method to extend Task which handles cancellation, something like this -
public async Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}).
WithCancellation(cancellationToken,false); // pass the cancellation token to extension funciton instead to run
}
static class TaskCacellationHelper
{
private struct Void { } // just to support TaskCompletionSource class.
public static async Task WithCancellation(this Task originalTask, CancellationToken ct, bool suppressCancellationExcetion)
{
// Create a Task that completes when the CancellationToken is canceled
var cancelTask = new TaskCompletionSource<Void>();
// When the CancellationToken is canceled, complete the Task
using (ct.Register(
t => ((TaskCompletionSource<Void>)t).TrySetResult(new Void()), cancelTask))
{
// Create a Task that completes when either the original or
// CancellationToken Task completes
Task any = await Task.WhenAny(originalTask, cancelTask.Task);
// If any Task completes due to CancellationToken, throw OperationCanceledException
if (any == cancelTask.Task)
{
//
if (suppressCancellationExcetion == false)
{
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Cancelled but exception supressed");
}
}
}
// await original task. Incase of cancellation your logic will break the while loop
await originalTask;
}
}

TaskCancellationException how to avoid the exception on success control flow?

In our application we work a lot with async / await and Tasks. Therefore it does use Task.Run a lot, sometimes with cancellation support using the built in CancellationToken.
public Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}, cancellationToken);
}
If i do now cancel the execution using the CancellationToken the execution does stop at the beginning of the next loop, or if the Task did not start at all it throws an exception (TaskCanceledException inside Task.Run). The question is now why does Task.Run use an Exception to control successful cancellation instead of just returning a completed Task. Is there any specific reason MS did not stick to the "Do NOT use exceptions to control execution flow" rule?.
And how can i avoid Boxing every method that supports cancellation (which are a lot) in an completely useless try catch (TaskCancelledException) block?

Well, you can't really see the difference in your very simple scenario - you're not actually using the result of the Task, and you don't need to propagate the cancellation through a complex call stack.
First, your Task might return a value. What do you return when the operation was cancelled?
Second, there may be other tasks that follow your cancelled task. You probably want to propagate the cancellation through the other tasks at your convenience.
Exceptions propagate. Task cancellation is pretty much identical to Thread.Abort in this usage - when you issue a Thread.Abort, a ThreadAbortException is used to make sure you unwind all the way back to the top. Otherwise, all of your methods would have to check the result of every method they call, check if they were cancelled, and return themselves if needed - and we've already seen that people will ignore error return values in old-school C :)
In the end, task cancellation, just like thread aborts, is an exceptional scenario. It already involves synchronization, stack unwinding etc.
However, this doesn't mean you necessarily have to use try-catch to catch the exception - you can use task states. For example, you can use a helper function like this:
public static Task<T> DefaultIfCanceled<T>(this Task<T> #this, T defaultValue = default(T))
{
return
#this.ContinueWith
(
t =>
{
if (t.IsCanceled) return defaultValue;
return t.Result;
}
);
}
Which you can use as
await SomeAsync().DefaultIfCanceled();
Of course, it should be noted that noöne is forcing you to use this method of cancellation - it's simply provided as a convenience. For example, you could use your own amplified type to preserve the cancellation information, and handle the cancellation manually. But when you start doing that, you'll find the reason why cancellation is handled using exceptions - doing this in imperative code is a pain, so you'll either waste a lot of effort for no gain, or you'll switch to a more functional way of programming (come, we have cookies!*).
(*) Disclaimer: We don't actually have cookies. But you can make your own!

The exception is thrown for a purpose as others in the community have already pointed it out.
However, if you would like to have more control over TaskCanceledException behaviour and still have the logic isolated to one place you may implement an Extension method to extend Task which handles cancellation, something like this -
public async Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}).
WithCancellation(cancellationToken,false); // pass the cancellation token to extension funciton instead to run
}
static class TaskCacellationHelper
{
private struct Void { } // just to support TaskCompletionSource class.
public static async Task WithCancellation(this Task originalTask, CancellationToken ct, bool suppressCancellationExcetion)
{
// Create a Task that completes when the CancellationToken is canceled
var cancelTask = new TaskCompletionSource<Void>();
// When the CancellationToken is canceled, complete the Task
using (ct.Register(
t => ((TaskCompletionSource<Void>)t).TrySetResult(new Void()), cancelTask))
{
// Create a Task that completes when either the original or
// CancellationToken Task completes
Task any = await Task.WhenAny(originalTask, cancelTask.Task);
// If any Task completes due to CancellationToken, throw OperationCanceledException
if (any == cancelTask.Task)
{
//
if (suppressCancellationExcetion == false)
{
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Cancelled but exception supressed");
}
}
}
// await original task. Incase of cancellation your logic will break the while loop
await originalTask;
}
}

Proper way to implement a never ending task. (Timers vs Task)

So, my app needs to perform an action almost continuously (with a pause of 10 seconds or so between each run) for as long as the app is running or a cancellation is requested. The work it needs to do has the possibility of taking up to 30 seconds.
Is it better to use a System.Timers.Timer and use AutoReset to make sure it doesn't perform the action before the previous "tick" has completed.
Or should I use a general Task in LongRunning mode with a cancellation token, and have a regular infinite while loop inside it calling the action doing the work with a 10 second Thread.Sleep between calls? As for the async/await model, I'm not sure it would be appropriate here as I don't have any return values from the work.
CancellationTokenSource wtoken;
Task task;
void StopWork()
{
wtoken.Cancel();
try
{
task.Wait();
} catch(AggregateException) { }
}
void StartWork()
{
wtoken = new CancellationTokenSource();
task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
wtoken.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DoWork();
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
}, wtoken, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
}
void DoWork()
{
// Some work that takes up to 30 seconds but isn't returning anything.
}
or just use a simple timer while using its AutoReset property, and call .Stop() to cancel it?

I'd use TPL Dataflow for this (since you're using .NET 4.5 and it uses Task internally). You can easily create an ActionBlock<TInput> which posts items to itself after it's processed it's action and waited an appropriate amount of time.
First, create a factory that will create your never-ending task:
ITargetBlock<DateTimeOffset> CreateNeverEndingTask(
Action<DateTimeOffset> action, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Validate parameters.
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
// Declare the block variable, it needs to be captured.
ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset> block = null;
// Create the block, it will call itself, so
// you need to separate the declaration and
// the assignment.
// Async so you can wait easily when the
// delay comes.
block = new ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset>(async now => {
// Perform the action.
action(now);
// Wait.
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken).
// Doing this here because synchronization context more than
// likely *doesn't* need to be captured for the continuation
// here. As a matter of fact, that would be downright
// dangerous.
ConfigureAwait(false);
// Post the action back to the block.
block.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now);
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions {
CancellationToken = cancellationToken
});
// Return the block.
return block;
}
I've chosen the ActionBlock<TInput> to take a DateTimeOffset structure; you have to pass a type parameter, and it might as well pass some useful state (you can change the nature of the state, if you want).
Also, note that the ActionBlock<TInput> by default processes only one item at a time, so you're guaranteed that only one action will be processed (meaning, you won't have to deal with reentrancy when it calls the Post extension method back on itself).
I've also passed the CancellationToken structure to both the constructor of the ActionBlock<TInput> and to the Task.Delay method call; if the process is cancelled, the cancellation will take place at the first possible opportunity.
From there, it's an easy refactoring of your code to store the ITargetBlock<DateTimeoffset> interface implemented by ActionBlock<TInput> (this is the higher-level abstraction representing blocks that are consumers, and you want to be able to trigger the consumption through a call to the Post extension method):
CancellationTokenSource wtoken;
ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset> task;
Your StartWork method:
void StartWork()
{
// Create the token source.
wtoken = new CancellationTokenSource();
// Set the task.
task = CreateNeverEndingTask(now => DoWork(), wtoken.Token);
// Start the task. Post the time.
task.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now);
}
And then your StopWork method:
void StopWork()
{
// CancellationTokenSource implements IDisposable.
using (wtoken)
{
// Cancel. This will cancel the task.
wtoken.Cancel();
}
// Set everything to null, since the references
// are on the class level and keeping them around
// is holding onto invalid state.
wtoken = null;
task = null;
}
Why would you want to use TPL Dataflow here? A few reasons:
Separation of concerns
The CreateNeverEndingTask method is now a factory that creates your "service" so to speak. You control when it starts and stops, and it's completely self-contained. You don't have to interweave state control of the timer with other aspects of your code. You simply create the block, start it, and stop it when you're done.
More efficient use of threads/tasks/resources
The default scheduler for the blocks in TPL data flow is the same for a Task, which is the thread pool. By using the ActionBlock<TInput> to process your action, as well as a call to Task.Delay, you're yielding control of the thread that you were using when you're not actually doing anything. Granted, this actually leads to some overhead when you spawn up the new Task that will process the continuation, but that should be small, considering you aren't processing this in a tight loop (you're waiting ten seconds between invocations).
If the DoWork function actually can be made awaitable (namely, in that it returns a Task), then you can (possibly) optimize this even more by tweaking the factory method above to take a Func<DateTimeOffset, CancellationToken, Task> instead of an Action<DateTimeOffset>, like so:
ITargetBlock<DateTimeOffset> CreateNeverEndingTask(
Func<DateTimeOffset, CancellationToken, Task> action,
CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Validate parameters.
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
// Declare the block variable, it needs to be captured.
ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset> block = null;
// Create the block, it will call itself, so
// you need to separate the declaration and
// the assignment.
// Async so you can wait easily when the
// delay comes.
block = new ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset>(async now => {
// Perform the action. Wait on the result.
await action(now, cancellationToken).
// Doing this here because synchronization context more than
// likely *doesn't* need to be captured for the continuation
// here. As a matter of fact, that would be downright
// dangerous.
ConfigureAwait(false);
// Wait.
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken).
// Same as above.
ConfigureAwait(false);
// Post the action back to the block.
block.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now);
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions {
CancellationToken = cancellationToken
});
// Return the block.
return block;
}
Of course, it would be good practice to weave the CancellationToken through to your method (if it accepts one), which is done here.
That means you would then have a DoWorkAsync method with the following signature:
Task DoWorkAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
You'd have to change (only slightly, and you're not bleeding out separation of concerns here) the StartWork method to account for the new signature passed to the CreateNeverEndingTask method, like so:
void StartWork()
{
// Create the token source.
wtoken = new CancellationTokenSource();
// Set the task.
task = CreateNeverEndingTask((now, ct) => DoWorkAsync(ct), wtoken.Token);
// Start the task. Post the time.
task.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now, wtoken.Token);
}

I find the new Task-based interface to be very simple for doing things like this - even easier than using the Timer class.
There are some small adjustments you can make to your example. Instead of:
task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
wtoken.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DoWork();
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
}, wtoken, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
You can do this:
task = Task.Run(async () => // <- marked async
{
while (true)
{
DoWork();
await Task.Delay(10000, wtoken.Token); // <- await with cancellation
}
}, wtoken.Token);
This way the cancellation will happen instantaneously if inside the Task.Delay, rather than having to wait for the Thread.Sleep to finish.
Also, using Task.Delay over Thread.Sleep means you aren't tying up a thread doing nothing for the duration of the sleep.
If you're able, you can also make DoWork() accept a cancellation token, and the cancellation will be much more responsive.

Here is what I came up with:
Inherit from NeverEndingTask and override the ExecutionCore method with the work you want to do.
Changing ExecutionLoopDelayMs allows you to adjust the time between loops e.g. if you wanted to use a backoff algorithm.
Start/Stop provide a synchronous interface to start/stop task.
LongRunning means you will get one dedicated thread per NeverEndingTask.
This class does not allocate memory in a loop unlike the ActionBlock based solution above.
The code below is sketch, not necessarily production code :)
:
public abstract class NeverEndingTask
{
// Using a CTS allows NeverEndingTask to "cancel itself"
private readonly CancellationTokenSource _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
protected NeverEndingTask()
{
TheNeverEndingTask = new Task(
() =>
{
// Wait to see if we get cancelled...
while (!_cts.Token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(ExecutionLoopDelayMs))
{
// Otherwise execute our code...
ExecutionCore(_cts.Token);
}
// If we were cancelled, use the idiomatic way to terminate task
_cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
},
_cts.Token,
TaskCreationOptions.DenyChildAttach | TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
// Do not forget to observe faulted tasks - for NeverEndingTask faults are probably never desirable
TheNeverEndingTask.ContinueWith(x =>
{
Trace.TraceError(x.Exception.InnerException.Message);
// Log/Fire Events etc.
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
protected readonly int ExecutionLoopDelayMs = 0;
protected Task TheNeverEndingTask;
public void Start()
{
// Should throw if you try to start twice...
TheNeverEndingTask.Start();
}
protected abstract void ExecutionCore(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
public void Stop()
{
// This code should be reentrant...
_cts.Cancel();
TheNeverEndingTask.Wait();
}
}