I want to launch a method in a separated thread periodically (every minute). I was using System.Timers.Timer but I realize that Timers cause memory leaks.
I need to remove Timers and use task. The first idea is launch a Task in the following way:
_taskWork = Task.Factory.StartNew( DoWork );
And in the DoWork method:
private void DoWork()
{
While(true)
{
// Stuff here
Thread.Sleep(60000);
}
}
Is there any way to launch a task avoiding this approach?
Similar Method : The async equivalent is a while loop with Task.Delay (which internally uses a System.Threading.Timer):
public async Task PeriodicFooAsync(TimeSpan interval, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while (true)
{
await FooAsync();
await Task.Delay(interval, cancellationToken)
}
}
This Work fine for me please refer this for more understanding.
Related
I have written a class with a method that runs as a long-running Task in the thread pool. The method is a monitoring service to periodically make a REST request to check on the status of another system. It's just a while() loop with a try()catch() inside so that it can handle its own exceptions and and gracefully continuing if something unexpected happens.
Here's an example:
public void LaunchMonitorThread()
{
Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
try
{
//Check system status
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occurred. Resuming on next loop...");
}
}
});
}
It works fine, but I want to know if there's another pattern I could use that would allow the Monitor method to run as regular part of a standard Async/Await application, instead of launching it with Task.Run() -- basically I'm trying to avoid fire-and-forget pattern.
So I tried refactoring the code to this:
public async Task LaunchMonitorThread()
{
while (true)
{
try
{
//Check system status
//Use task.delay instead of thread.sleep:
await Task.Delay(5000);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occurred. Resuming on next loop...");
}
}
}
But when I try to call the method in another async method, I get the fun compiler warning:
"Because this call is not awaited, execution of the current method continues before the call is completed."
Now I think this is correct and what I want. But I have doubts because I'm new to async/await. Is this code going to run the way I expect or is it going to DEADLOCK or do something else fatal?
What you are really looking for is the use of a Timer. Use the one in the System.Threading namespace. There is no need to use Task or any other variation thereof (for the code sample you have shown).
private System.Threading.Timer timer;
void StartTimer()
{
timer = new System.Threading.Timer(TimerExecution, null, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5), TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
}
void TimerExecution(object state)
{
try
{
//Check system status
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occurred. Resuming on next loop...");
}
}
From the documentation
Provides a mechanism for executing a method on a thread pool thread at specified intervals
You could also use System.Timers.Timer but you might not need it. For a comparison between the 2 Timers see also System.Timers.Timer vs System.Threading.Timer.
If you need fire-and-forget operation, it is fine. I'd suggest to improve it with CancellationToken
public async Task LaunchMonitorThread(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
//Check system status
//Use task.delay instead of thread.sleep:
await Task.Delay(5000, token);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occurred. Resuming on next loop...");
}
}
}
besides that, you can use it like
var cancellationToken = new CancellationToken();
var monitorTask = LaunchMonitorThread(cancellationToken);
and save task and/or cancellationToken to interrupt monitor wherever you want
The method Task.Run that you use to fire is perfect to start long-running async functions from a non-async method.
You are right: the forget part is not correct. If for instance your process is going to close, it would be neater if you kindly asked the started thread to finish its task.
The proper way to do this would be to use a CancellationTokenSource. If you order the CancellationTokenSource to Cancel, then all procedures that were started using Tokens from this CancellationTokenSource will stop neatly within reasonable time.
So let's create a class LongRunningTask, that will create a long running Task upon construction and Cancel this task using the CancellationTokenSource upon Dispose().
As both the CancellationTokenSource as the Task implement IDisposable the neat way would be to Dispose these two when the LongRunningTask object is disposed
class LongRunningTask : IDisposable
{
public LongRunningTask(Action<CancellationToken> action)
{ // Starts a Task that will perform the action
this.cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
this.longRunningTask = Task.Run( () => action (this.cancellationTokenSource.Token));
}
private readonly CancellationTokenSource cancellationTokenSource;
private readonly Task longRunningTask;
private bool isDisposed = false;
public async Task CancelAsync()
{ // cancel the task and wait until the task is completed:
if (this.isDisposed) throw new ObjectDisposedException();
this.cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
await this.longRunningTask;
}
// for completeness a non-async version:
public void Cancel()
{ // cancel the task and wait until the task is completed:
if (this.isDisposed) throw new ObjectDisposedException();
this.cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
this.longRunningTask.Wait;
}
}
Add a standard Dispose Pattern
public void Dispose()
{
this.Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing && !this.isDisposed)
{ // cancel the task, and wait until task completed:
this.Cancel();
this.IsDisposed = true;
}
}
Usage:
var longRunningTask = new LongRunningTask( (token) => MyFunction(token)
...
// when application closes:
await longRunningTask.CancelAsync(); // not necessary but the neat way to do
longRunningTask.Dispose();
The Action {...} has a CancellationToken as input parameter, your function should regularly check it
async Task MyFunction(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationrequested)
{
// do what you have to do, make sure to regularly (every second?) check the token
// when calling other tasks: pass the token
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5), token);
}
}
Instead of checking for Token, you could call token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested. This will throw an exception that you'll have to catch
I am rather new to task based programming and trying to determine how to return a task and verify that it has been started. The code that I got to work was not what I was expecting. The console application is as follows:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var mySimple = new Simple();
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = mySimple.RunSomethingAsync(cts.Token);
while (task.Status != TaskStatus.RanToCompletion)
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting...");
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
Console.WriteLine("It is started");
Console.ReadKey();
cts.Cancel();
}
public class Simple
{
public async void RunSomething(CancellationToken token)
{
var count = 0;
while (true)
{
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
break;
}
Console.WriteLine(count++);
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(1000), token).ContinueWith(task => { });
}
}
public Task RunSomethingAsync(CancellationToken token)
{
return Task.Run(() => this.RunSomething(token));
}
}
The output is:
Starting...
0
It is started
1
2
3
4
Why is the task that is being returned have a status as TaskStatus.RanToCompletion compared to TaskStatus.Running as we see that the while loop is still executing? Am I checking the status of the task of putting the RunSomething task on the threadpool rather than the RunSomething task itself?
RunSomething is an async void method, meaning it exposes no means of the caller ever determining when it finishes, they can only ever start the operation and then have no idea what happens next. You then wrap a call to it inside of Task.Run, this is schedluing a thread pool thread to start RunSomething. It will then complete as soon as it has finished starting that Task.
If RunSomething actually returned a Task, then the caller would be able to determine when it actually finished, and if you waited on it it wouldn't actually indicate that it was done until that asynchronous operation was actually finished (there would be no reason to use Task.Run to start it in another thead, you'd be better off just calling it directly and not wasting the effort of moving that to a thread pool thread).
Never use async void (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/jj991977.aspx)
instead you should use async Task
If you need to call an async method from a non-async (such as from a static void main) you should do something like this:
mySimple.RunSomethingAsync(cts.Token).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
That will effectively make the method a synchronous call.
You can use async void, but only for events.
I'm still getting up to speed with async & multi threading. I'm trying to monitor when the Task I Start is still running (to show in a UI). However it's indicating that it is RanToCompletion earlier than I want, when it hits an await, even when I consider its Status as still Running.
Here is the sample I'm doing. It all seems to be centred around the await's. When it hits an await, it is then marked as RanToCompletion.
I want to keep track of the main Task which starts it all, in a way which indicates to me that it is still running all the way to the end and only RanToCompletion when it is all done, including the repo call and the WhenAll.
How can I change this to get the feedback I want about the tskProdSeeding task status?
My Console application Main method calls this:
Task tskProdSeeding;
tskProdSeeding = Task.Factory.StartNew(SeedingProd, _cts.Token);
Which the runs this:
private async void SeedingProd(object state)
{
var token = (CancellationToken)state;
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
int totalSeeded = 0;
var codesToSeed = await _myRepository.All().ToListAsync(token);
await Task.WhenAll(Task.Run(async () =>
{
foreach (var code in codesToSeed)
{
if (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
int seedCountByCode = await _myManager.SeedDataFromLive(code);
totalSeeded += seedCountByCode;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.InfoFormat(ex.ToString());
}
}
}
}, token));
Thread.Sleep(30000);
}
}
If you use async void the outer task can't tell when the task is finished, you need to use async Task instead.
Second, once you do switch to async Task, Task.Factory.StartNew can't handle functions that return a Task, you need to switch to Task.Run(
tskProdSeeding = Task.Run(() => SeedingProd(_cts.Token), _cts.Token);
Once you do both of those changes you will be able to await or do a .Wait() on tskProdSeeding and it will properly wait till all the work is done before continuing.
Please read "Async/Await - Best Practices in Asynchronous Programming" to learn more about not doing async void.
Please read "StartNew is Dangerous" to learn more about why you should not be using StartNew the way you are using it.
P.S. In SeedingProd you should switch it to use await Task.Delay(30000); insetad of Thread.Sleep(30000);, you will then not tie up a thread while it waits. If you do this you likely could drop the
tskProdSeeding = Task.Run(() => SeedingProd(_cts.Token), _cts.Token);
and just make it
tskProdSeeding = SeedingProd(_cts.Token);
because the function no-longer has a blocking call inside of it.
I'm not convinced that you need a second thread (Task.Run or StartNew) at all. It looks like the bulk of the work is I/O-bound and if you're doing it asynchronously and using Task.Delay instead of Thread.Sleep, then there is no thread consumed by those operations and your UI shouldn't freeze. The first thing anyone new to async needs to understand is that it's not the same thing as multithreading. The latter is all about consuming more threads, the former is all about consuming fewer. Focus on eliminating the blocking and you shouldn't need a second thread.
As others have noted, SeedingProd needs to return a Task, not void, so you can observe its completion. I believe your method can be reduced to this:
private async Task SeedingProd(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
int totalSeeded = 0;
var codesToSeed = await _myRepository.All().ToListAsync(token);
foreach (var code in codesToSeed)
{
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
try
{
int seedCountByCode = await _myManager.SeedDataFromLive(code);
totalSeeded += seedCountByCode;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.InfoFormat(ex.ToString());
}
}
await Task.Dealy(30000);
}
}
Then simply call the method, without awaiting it, and you'll have your task.
Task mainTask = SeedingProd(token);
When you specify async on a method, it compiles into a state machine with a Task, so SeedingProd does not run synchronously, but acts as a Task even if returns void. So when you call Task.Factory.StartNew(SeedingProd) you start a task that kick off another task - that's why the first one finishes immediately before the second one. All you have to do is add the Task return parameter instead of void:
private async Task SeedingProdAsync(CancellationToken ct)
{
...
}
and call it as simply as this:
Task tskProdSeeding = SeedingProdAsync(_cts.Token);
In Brief
I have a Windows Service that executes several jobs as async Tasks in parallel. However, when the OnStop is called, it seems that these are all immediately terminated instead of being allowed to stop in a more gracious manner.
In more detail
Each job represents an iteration of work, so having completed its work the job then needs to run again.
To accomplish this, I am writing a proof-of-concept Windows Service that:
runs each job as an awaited async TPL Task (these are all I/O bound tasks)
each job is run iteratively within a loop
each job's loop is run in parallel
When I run the Service, I see everything executing as I expect. However, when I Stop the service, it seems that everything stops dead.
Okay - so how is this working?
In the Service I have a cancellation token, and a TaskCompletion Source:
private static CancellationTokenSource _cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
private TaskCompletionSource<bool> _jobCompletion = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
private Task<bool> AllJobsCompleted { get { return _finalItems.Task; } }
The idea is that when every Job has gracefully stopped, then the Task AllJobsCompleted will be marked as completed.
The OnStart simply starts running these jobs:
protected override async void OnStart(string[] args)
{
_cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var jobsToRun = GetJobsToRun(); // details of jobs not relevant
Task.Run(() => this.RunJobs(jobsToRun, _cancelSource.Token).ConfigureAwait(false), _cancelSource.Token);
}
The Task RunJobs will run each job in a parallel loop:
private async Task RunModules(IEnumerable<Jobs> jobs, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var parallelOptions = new ParallelOptions { CancellationToken = cancellationToken };
int jobsRunningCount = jobs.Count();
object lockObject = new object();
Parallel.ForEach(jobs, parallelOptions, async (job, loopState) =>
{
try
{
do
{
await job.DoWork().ConfigureAwait(false); // could take 5 seconds
parallelOptions.CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}while(true);
}
catch(OperationCanceledException)
{
lock (lockObject) { jobsRunningCount --; }
}
});
do
{
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
} while (modulesRunningCount > 0);
_jobCompletion.SetResult(true);
}
So, what should be happening is that when each job finishes its current iteration, it should see that the cancellation has been signalled and it should then exit the loop and decrement the counter.
Then, when jobsRunningCount reaches zero, then we update the TaskCompletionSource. (There may be a more elegant way of achieving this...)
So, for the OnStop:
protected override async void OnStop()
{
this.RequestAdditionalTime(100000); // some large number
_cancelSource.Cancel();
TraceMessage("Task cancellation requested."); // Last thing traced
try
{
bool allStopped = await this.AllJobsCompleted;
TraceMessage(string.Format("allStopped = '{0}'.", allStopped));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
TraceMessage(e.Message);
}
}
What what I expect is this:
Click [STOP] on the Service
The Service should take sometime to stop
I should see a trace statement "Task cancellation requested."
I should see a trace statement saying either "allStopped = true", or the exception message
And when I debug this using a WPF Form app, I get this.
However, when I install it as a service:
Click [STOP] on the Service
The Service stops almost immediately
I only see the trace statement "Task cancellation requested."
What do I need to do to ensure the OnStop doesn't kill off my parallel async jobs and waits for the TaskCompletionSource?
Your problem is that OnStop is async void. So, when it does await this.AllJobsCompleted, what actually happens is that it returns from OnStop, which the SCM interprets as having stopped, and terminates the process.
This is one of the rare scenarios where you'd need to block on a task, because you cannot allow OnStop to return until after the task completes.
This should do it:
protected override void OnStop()
{
this.RequestAdditionalTime(100000); // some large number
_cancelSource.Cancel();
TraceMessage("Task cancellation requested."); // Last thing traced
try
{
bool allStopped = this.AllJobsCompleted.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
TraceMessage(string.Format("allStopped = '{0}'.", allStopped));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
TraceMessage(e.Message);
}
}
I need to perform few tasks inside a Windows Service I am writing in parallel. I am using VS2013, .NET 4.5 and this thread Basic design pattern for using TPL inside windows service for C# shows that TPL is the way to go.
Below is my implementation. I was wondering if anyone can tell me if I have done it correctly!
public partial class FtpLink : ServiceBase
{
private readonly CancellationTokenSource _cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
private readonly ManualResetEvent _runCompleteEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public FtpLink()
{
InitializeComponent();
// Load configuration
WebEnvironment.Instance.Initialise();
}
protected override void OnStart(string[] args)
{
Trace.TraceInformation("DatabaseToFtp is running");
try
{
RunAsync(_cancellationTokenSource.Token).Wait();
}
finally
{
_runCompleteEvent.Set();
}
}
protected override void OnStop()
{
Trace.TraceInformation("DatabaseToFtp is stopping");
_cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
_runCompleteEvent.WaitOne();
Trace.TraceInformation("DatabaseToFtp has stopped");
}
private async Task RunAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Trace.TraceInformation("Working");
// Do the actual work
var tasks = new List<Task>
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => new Processor().ProcessMessageFiles(), cancellationToken),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => new Processor().ProcessFirmware(), cancellationToken)
};
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray(), cancellationToken);
// Delay the loop for a certain time
await Task.Delay(WebEnvironment.Instance.DatabasePollInterval, cancellationToken);
}
}
}
There are a few things i would do differently:
OnStart should execute in a timely fashion. Common practice is to defer work to a background thread which is in charge of doing the actual work. You're actually doing that but blocking that thread with a call to Task.Wait, which kind of makes the offloading to a background thread useless, because execution becomes synchronous again.
You're using the sync over async anti-pattern, this should be mostly avoided. Let the calling method invoke the work in parallel.
I think you might be using the ManualResetEvent the other way around. You're wrapping your RunAsync method in a try-finally block, but you're only calling WaitOne from OnStop. I'm not really sure you need a lock here at all, it doesn't seem (from your current code) that this code is being invoked in parallel. Instead, you can store the Task returned by RunAsync in a field and wait on it to complete.
You're using the blocking version, WaitAll. Instead, you could use the asynchronous version, Task.WhenAll, which can be asynchronously waited.