We Keep Coding

Interrupt method execution on demand

I do have a method for which the execution time might take a while (approx. 2 minutes) running inside a task:
public Task BaseWorkerTask { get; set; }
public void Initialize()
{
BaseWorkerTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
BaseWorker();
});
}
public void BaseWorker()
{
Server.Speak(Packet.Greeting);
while (WaitServerResponse())
{
DoSomethingElse();
}
var response = Server.GetResponse();
if (response.Equals("abc"))
{
DoAbcTask();
}
else if (response.Equals("def"))
{
[...]
}
[...]
}
I would like to be able to interrupt it's execution for a given period of time in order to do some other server calls. What is important to note here, is that I want it to "pause" script execution at current line in the BaseWorker method, just where it's exactly at.
Something like:
if (!BaseWorkerTask.IsCompleted)
{
// Pause to do something else
// BaseWorkerTask.StopAtCurrentPlace();
DoSomethingElse();
// Once something else is done, resume BaseWorkerTask
// BaseWorkerTask.Resume();
}
Can such approach be achieved?
I have been trying to play with blocking a thread, however I was only able to block it once the method has finished using endless loop with System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(...).

Thread.Suspend is probably the closest you'll get, but it's marked as obsolete with the following (relevant) warning:
Do not use the Suspend and Resume methods to synchronize the activities of threads. You have no way of knowing what code a thread is executing when you suspend it. If you suspend a thread while it holds locks during a security permission evaluation, other threads in the AppDomain might be blocked. If you suspend a thread while it is executing a class constructor, other threads in the AppDomain that attempt to use that class are blocked. Deadlocks can occur very easily.
In short, anything that can do this would be a bad idea for exactly the same reasons as above.
Attempting to use it on thread-pool threads virtually assures you of malfunction.
If you want to do this, you'll have to think of a way that the task can co-operate in its own pausing. Likely, this will involve peppering the code with synchronization stuff.
What's taking so long anyway?

I would use some kind of a bool flag, similar to a cancellation token. Set it to true when you want to suspend execution of the task, and inside of the BaseWorker check the value of the variable at various places. If it's true, use Thread.Sleep to halt execution until it's set to false.
Example:
bool suspendExecution = false;
public void Initialize()
{
BaseWorkerTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
BaseWorker(ref suspendExecution);
});
}
public void BaseWorker(ref bool suspend)
{
while (WaitServerResponse())
{
if (suspend)
{
while (suspend)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
DoSomethingElse();
}
}

wait for static callback complete

I've a scenario:
MyApp calls cameraCapture
that fires a callbackFunction
after the callbackFunction (I have a photo captured) completes, I do more stuff.
So I have to wait for callbackFunction to complete before executing another function. How could i do this?
Here my code:
private static readonly Plustek_Camera.PFNCK_EVENT staticFnCamera = fnPFNCK_EVENT;
public static bool fnPFNCK_EVENT(int iEvent, int iParam, IntPtr pUserData)
{
//capture picture and save to folder
}
//I implement callback start camera and fire a callback staticFnCamera
var _status = CameraCtrl.Start(CameraCtrl.ScanMode, CameraCtrl.Resolution, CameraCtrl.ImageFormat, CameraCtrl.Alignment, staticFnCamera);
//waiting for staticFnCamera complete make sure image produced
ReadPassPortText();

If I understand correctly, you have some camera control that provides an asynchronous API to start capturing an image, but you want to wait synchronously for that operation to complete.
If so, there are lots of different ways to accomplish what you're trying to do. One such way would be to use a TaskCompletionSource:
TaskCompletionSource<bool> source = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
var _status = CameraCtrl.Start(CameraCtrl.ScanMode, CameraCtrl.Resolution,
CameraCtrl.ImageFormat, CameraCtrl.Alignment,
(iEvent, iParam, pUserData) =>
{
staticFnCamera(iEvent, iParam, pUserData);
source.SetResult(true);
});
//waiting for staticFnCamera complete make sure image produced
await source.Task;
ReadPassPortText();
Note that the above uses await, which is valid only in an async method. You haven't provided enough context to show exactly how that would work in your code, but I strongly recommend following the above. That will avoid blocking the currently running thread; the async method will return at that point, letting the thread continue to run, and will be resumed at the ReadPassPortText(); statement when the operation completes.
If for some reason you simply cannot use the await in your method, you can instead simply do source.Task.Wait();. This will, of course, block the currently executing thread at that statement.
The above requires .NET 4.5. There are other approaches that work with earlier versions of .NET, but you would need to be specific about your requirements to make it worth trying to describe those.
Edit:
Since you are using .NET 4.0, and presumably Visual Studio 2010, the above won't work for you "out-of-the-box". One option is to download the Async CTP for Visual Studio, which will give you the C# 5.0 compiler that would enable the above. But if that's not feasible for you, another option is to just do what the compiler would do on your behalf, by replacing the last two lines above with the following:
source.Task.ContinueWith(task => ReadPassPortText(),
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
That would attach the continuation delegate that call ReadPassPortText() to the Task object from the TaskCompletionSource, specifying the current synchronization context as the source of the scheduler to use to actually run the continuation.
The method would return after calling ContinueWith() (just as it would in the await version, except that here it's written out explicitly instead of the compiler doing it for you). When the Task object is set to the completed state, the previously-registered continuation will be executed.
Note that your original question isn't very clear about the context. If the code is running in the UI thread, then using FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() is important and will ensure that the continuation is executed in the UI thread as well. Otherwise, you can probably get away without specifying a scheduler in the call to ContinueWith().

This demonstrates an async-await pattern that you can use. As Peter Duniho points out in the comments, you will have to adapt the pattern to the API that you're using. Try playing with it here at this fiddle to understand how these things work.
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public class MyApp
{
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("1. MyApp calls camera capture.");
CameraCaptureAsync().Wait();
}
public async static Task CameraCaptureAsync()
{
Console.WriteLine("2. That calls callbackFunction");
var task = CallbackFunction();
Console.WriteLine("4. In the meantime.");
Console.WriteLine("5. Do some other stuff. ");
await task;
Console.WriteLine("7. Process the " + task.Result);
DoMoreStuff();
}
public async static Task<string> CallbackFunction()
{
Console.WriteLine("3. Which takes a picture.");
await Task.Delay(100);
Console.WriteLine("6. After the callback functions completes");
return "Photograph";
}
public static void DoMoreStuff()
{
Console.WriteLine("8. Do more stuff.");
}
}

After try some implement callback waiting, i try to resolve by adding another form for capturing images (frmSecond).
frmFirst call frmSecond and waiting in 5 to 7 seconds to make sure capture completed.
after that processing ReadPassPortText()
frmFirst Code:
frmReadPassport frmReadPass = new frmReadPassport();
frmReadPass.ShowDialog();
ReadPassPortText();
frmSecondCode
private CAMERACTRL CameraCtrl = null;
//Add static for call from camera start , make sure this alive
private static Plustek_Camera.PFNCK_EVENT staticFnCamera ;
public frmReadPassport()
{
InitializeComponent();
staticFnCamera = fnPFNCK_EVENT;
}
Timer formClose = new Timer();
private void frmReadPassport_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
CaptureImages();
formClose.Interval = 7000; // 7 sec
formClose.Tick += new EventHandler(formClose_Tick);
formClose.Start();
}
private void formClose_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//free camera first
// check if camera start then stop
ReleaseResourceCamera();
staticFnCamera =null;
formClose.Stop();
formClose.Tick -= new EventHandler(formClose_Tick);
this.Dispose();
this.Close();
}
private void CaptureImages()
{
CameraCtrl = new CAMERACTRL();
CameraCtrl.LoadCameraDll();
CameraCtrl.GetDeviceList();
String temp = CameraCtrl.GetParameter();
CameraCtrl.Start(CameraCtrl.ScanMode,CameraCtrl.Resolution,CameraCtrl.ImageFormat, CameraCtrl.Alignment, staticFnCamera);
}
public static bool fnPFNCK_EVENT(int iEvent, int iParam, IntPtr UserData)
{
captureImage();
return true;
}
}

Use a Task to avoid multiple calls to expensive operation and to cache its result

I have an async method that fetches some data from a database. This operation is fairly expensive, and takes a long time to complete. As a result, I'd like to cache the method's return value. However, it's possible that the async method will be called multiple times before its initial execution has a chance to return and save its result to the cache, resulting in multiple calls to this expensive operation.
To avoid this, I'm currently reusing a Task, like so:
public class DataAccess
{
private Task<MyData> _getDataTask;
public async Task<MyData> GetDataAsync()
{
if (_getDataTask == null)
{
_getDataTask = Task.Run(() => synchronousDataAccessMethod());
}
return await _getDataTask;
}
}
My thought is that the initial call to GetDataAsync will kick off the synchronousDataAccessMethod method in a Task, and any subsequent calls to this method before the Task has completed will simply await the already running Task, automatically avoiding calling synchronousDataAccessMethod more than once. Calls made to GetDataAsync after the private Task has completed will cause the Task to be awaited, which will immediately return the data from its initial execution.
This seems to be working, but I'm having some strange performance issues that I suspect may be tied to this approach. Specifically, awaiting _getDataTask after it has completed takes several seconds (and locks the UI thread), even though the synchronousDataAccessMethod call is not called.
Am I misusing async/await? Is there a hidden gotcha that I'm not seeing? Is there a better way to accomplish the desired behavior?
EDIT
Here's how I call this method:
var result = (await myDataAccessObject.GetDataAsync()).ToList();
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the result is not immediately enumerated?

If you want to await it further up the call stack, I think you want this:
public class DataAccess
{
private Task<MyData> _getDataTask;
private readonly object lockObj = new Object();
public async Task<MyData> GetDataAsync()
{
lock(lockObj)
{
if (_getDataTask == null)
{
_getDataTask = Task.Run(() => synchronousDataAccessMethod());
}
}
return await _getDataTask;
}
}
Your original code has the potential for this happening:
Thread 1 sees that _getDataTask == null, and begins constructing the task
Thread 2 sees that _getDataTask == null, and begins constructing the task
Thread 1 finishes constructing the task, which starts, and Thread 1 waits on that task
Thread 2 finishes constructing a task, which starts, and Thread 2 waits on that task
You end up with two instances of the task running.

Use the lock function to prevent multiple calls to the database query section. Lock will make it thread safe so that once it has been cached all the other calls will use it instead of running to the database for fulfillment.
lock(StaticObject) // Create a static object so there is only one value defined for this routine
{
if(_getDataTask == null)
{
// Get data code here
}
return _getDataTask
}

Please rewrite your function as:
public Task<MyData> GetDataAsync()
{
if (_getDataTask == null)
{
_getDataTask = Task.Run(() => synchronousDataAccessMethod());
}
return _getDataTask;
}
This should not change at all the things that can be done with this function - you can still await on the returned task!
Please tell me if that changes anything.

Bit late to answer this but there is an open source library called LazyCache that will do this for you in two lines of code and it was recently updated to handle caching Tasks for just this sort of situation. It is also available on nuget.
Example:
Func<Task<List<MyData>>> cacheableAsyncFunc = () => myDataAccessObject.GetDataAsync();
var cachedData = await cache.GetOrAddAsync("myDataAccessObject.GetData", cacheableAsyncFunc);
return cachedData;
// Or instead just do it all in one line if you prefer
// return await cache.GetOrAddAsync("myDataAccessObject.GetData", myDataAccessObject.GetDataAsync);
}
It has built in locking by default so the cacheable method will only execute once per cache miss, and it uses a lamda so you can do "get or add" in one go. It defaults to 20 minutes sliding expiration but you can set whatever caching policy you like on it.
More info on caching tasks is in the api docs and you may find the sample app to demo caching tasks useful.
(Disclaimer: I am the author of LazyCache)

Calling async methods from a synchronous context

I'm calling a service over HTTP (ultimately using the HttpClient.SendAsync method) from within my code. This code is then called into from a WebAPI controller action. Mostly, it works fine (tests pass) but then when I deploy on say IIS, I experience a deadlock because caller of the async method call has been blocked and the continuation cannot proceed on that thread until it finishes (which it won't).
While I could make most of my methods async I don't feel as if I have a basic understanding of when I'd must do this.
For example, let's say I did make most of my methods async (since they ultimately call other async service methods) how would I then invoke the first async method of my program if I built say a message loop where I want some control of the degree of parallelism?
Since the HttpClient doesn't have any synchronous methods, what can I safely presume to do if I have an abstraction that isn't async aware? I've read about the ConfigureAwait(false) but I don't really understand what it does. It's strange to me that it's set after the async invocation. To me that feels as if a race waiting to happen... however unlikely...
WebAPI example:
public HttpResponseMessage Get()
{
var userContext = contextService.GetUserContext(); // <-- synchronous
return ...
}
// Some IUserContextService implementation
public IUserContext GetUserContext()
{
var httpClient = new HttpClient();
var result = httpClient.GetAsync(...).Result; // <-- I really don't care if this is asynchronous or not
return new HttpUserContext(result);
}
Message loop example:
var mq = new MessageQueue();
// we then run say 8 tasks that do this
for (;;)
{
var m = mq.Get();
var c = GetCommand(m);
c.InvokeAsync().Wait();
m.Delete();
}
When you have a message loop that allow things to happen in parallel and you have asynchronous methods, there's a opportunity to minimize latency. Basically, what I want to accomplish in this instance is to minimize latency and idle time. Though I'm actually unsure as to how to invoke into the command that's associated with the message that arrives off the queue.
To be more specific, if the command invocation needs to do service requests there's going to be latency in the invocation that could be used to get the next message. Stuff like that. I can totally do this simply by wrapping up things in queues and coordinating this myself but I'd like to see this work with just some async/await stuff.

While I could make most of my methods async I don't feel as if I have a basic understanding of when I'd must do this.
Start at the lowest level. It sounds like you've already got a start, but if you're looking for more at the lowest level, then the rule of thumb is anything I/O-based should be made async (e.g., HttpClient).
Then it's a matter of repeating the async infection. You want to use async methods, so you call them with await. So that method must be async. So all of its callers must use await, so they must also be async, etc.
how would I then invoke the first async method of my program if I built say a message loop where I want some control of the degree of parallelism?
It's easiest to put the framework in charge of this. E.g., you can just return a Task<T> from a WebAPI action, and the framework understands that. Similarly, UI applications have a message loop built-in that async will work naturally with.
If you have a situation where the framework doesn't understand Task or have a built-in message loop (usually a Console application or a Win32 service), you can use the AsyncContext type in my AsyncEx library. AsyncContext just installs a "main loop" (that is compatible with async) onto the current thread.
Since the HttpClient doesn't have any synchronous methods, what can I safely presume to do if I have an abstraction that isn't async aware?
The correct approach is to change the abstraction. Do not attempt to block on asynchronous code; I describe that common deadlock scenario in detail on my blog.
You change the abstraction by making it async-friendly. For example, change IUserContext IUserContextService.GetUserContext() to Task<IUserContext> IUserContextService.GetUserContextAsync().
I've read about the ConfigureAwait(false) but I don't really understand what it does. It's strange to me that it's set after the async invocation.
You may find my async intro helpful. I won't say much more about ConfigureAwait in this answer because I think it's not directly applicable to a good solution for this question (but I'm not saying it's bad; it actually should be used unless you can't use it).
Just bear in mind that async is an operator with precedence rules and all that. It feels magical at first, but it's really not so much. This code:
var result = await httpClient.GetAsync(url).ConfigureAwait(false);
is exactly the same as this code:
var asyncOperation = httpClient.GetAsync(url).ConfigureAwait(false);
var result = await asyncOperation;
There are usually no race conditions in async code because - even though the method is asynchronous - it is also sequential. The method can be paused at an await, and it will not be resumed until that await completes.
When you have a message loop that allow things to happen in parallel and you have asynchronous methods, there's a opportunity to minimize latency.
This is the second time you've mentioned a "message loop" "in parallel", but I think what you actually want is to have multiple (asynchronous) consumers working off the same queue, correct? That's easy enough to do with async (note that there is just a single message loop on a single thread in this example; when everything is async, that's usually all you need):
await tasks.WhenAll(ConsumerAsync(), ConsumerAsync(), ConsumerAsync());
async Task ConsumerAsync()
{
for (;;) // TODO: consider a CancellationToken for orderly shutdown
{
var m = await mq.ReceiveAsync();
var c = GetCommand(m);
await c.InvokeAsync();
m.Delete();
}
}
// Extension method
public static Task<Message> ReceiveAsync(this MessageQueue mq)
{
return Task<Message>.Factory.FromAsync(mq.BeginReceive, mq.EndReceive, null);
}
You'd probably also be interested in TPL Dataflow. Dataflow is a library that understands and works well with async code, and has nice parallel options built-in.

While I appreciate the insight from community members it's always difficult to express the intent of what I'm trying to do but tremendously helpful to get advice about circumstances surrounding the problem. With that, I eventually arrived that the following code.
public class AsyncOperatingContext
{
struct Continuation
{
private readonly SendOrPostCallback d;
private readonly object state;
public Continuation(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
this.d = d;
this.state = state;
}
public void Run()
{
d(state);
}
}
class BlockingSynchronizationContext : SynchronizationContext
{
readonly BlockingCollection<Continuation> _workQueue;
public BlockingSynchronizationContext(BlockingCollection<Continuation> workQueue)
{
_workQueue = workQueue;
}
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
_workQueue.TryAdd(new Continuation(d, state));
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Gets the recommended max degree of parallelism. (Your main program message loop could use this value.)
/// </summary>
public static int MaxDegreeOfParallelism { get { return Environment.ProcessorCount; } }
#region Helper methods
/// <summary>
/// Run an async task. This method will block execution (and use the calling thread as a worker thread) until the async task has completed.
/// </summary>
public static T Run<T>(Func<Task<T>> main, int degreeOfParallelism = 1)
{
var asyncOperatingContext = new AsyncOperatingContext();
asyncOperatingContext.DegreeOfParallelism = degreeOfParallelism;
return asyncOperatingContext.RunMain(main);
}
/// <summary>
/// Run an async task. This method will block execution (and use the calling thread as a worker thread) until the async task has completed.
/// </summary>
public static void Run(Func<Task> main, int degreeOfParallelism = 1)
{
var asyncOperatingContext = new AsyncOperatingContext();
asyncOperatingContext.DegreeOfParallelism = degreeOfParallelism;
asyncOperatingContext.RunMain(main);
}
#endregion
private readonly BlockingCollection<Continuation> _workQueue;
public int DegreeOfParallelism { get; set; }
public AsyncOperatingContext()
{
_workQueue = new BlockingCollection<Continuation>();
}
/// <summary>
/// Initialize the current thread's SynchronizationContext so that work is scheduled to run through this AsyncOperatingContext.
/// </summary>
protected void InitializeSynchronizationContext()
{
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(new BlockingSynchronizationContext(_workQueue));
}
protected void RunMessageLoop()
{
while (!_workQueue.IsCompleted)
{
Continuation continuation;
if (_workQueue.TryTake(out continuation, Timeout.Infinite))
{
continuation.Run();
}
}
}
protected T RunMain<T>(Func<Task<T>> main)
{
var degreeOfParallelism = DegreeOfParallelism;
if (!((1 <= degreeOfParallelism) & (degreeOfParallelism <= 5000))) // sanity check
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("DegreeOfParallelism must be between 1 and 5000.", "DegreeOfParallelism");
}
var currentSynchronizationContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;
InitializeSynchronizationContext(); // must set SynchronizationContext before main() task is scheduled
var mainTask = main(); // schedule "main" task
mainTask.ContinueWith(task => _workQueue.CompleteAdding());
// for single threading we don't need worker threads so we don't use any
// otherwise (for increased parallelism) we simply launch X worker threads
if (degreeOfParallelism > 1)
{
for (int i = 1; i < degreeOfParallelism; i++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(_ => {
// do we really need to restore the SynchronizationContext here as well?
InitializeSynchronizationContext();
RunMessageLoop();
});
}
}
RunMessageLoop();
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(currentSynchronizationContext); // restore
return mainTask.Result;
}
protected void RunMain(Func<Task> main)
{
// The return value doesn't matter here
RunMain(async () => { await main(); return 0; });
}
}
This class is complete and it does a couple of things that I found difficult to grasp.
As general advice you should allow the TAP (task-based asynchronous) pattern to propagate through your code. This may imply quite a bit of refactoring (or redesign). Ideally you should be allowed to break this up into pieces and make progress as you work towards to overall goal of making your program more asynchronous.
Something that's inherently dangerous to do is to call asynchronous code callously in an synchronous fashion. By this we mean invoking the Wait or Result methods. These can lead to deadlocks. One way to work around something like that is to use the AsyncOperatingContext.Run method. It will use the current thread to run a message loop until the asynchronous call is complete. It will swap out whatever SynchronizationContext is associated with the current thread temporarily to do so.
Note: I don't know if this is enough, or if you are allowed to swap back the SynchronizationContext this way, assuming that you can, this should work. I've already been bitten by the ASP.NET deadlock issue and this could possibly function as a workaround.
Lastly, I found myself asking the question, what is the corresponding equivalent of Main(string[]) in an async context? Turns out that's the message loop.
What I've found is that there are two things that make out this async machinery.
SynchronizationContext.Post and the message loop. In my AsyncOperatingContext I provide a very simple message loop:
protected void RunMessageLoop()
{
while (!_workQueue.IsCompleted)
{
Continuation continuation;
if (_workQueue.TryTake(out continuation, Timeout.Infinite))
{
continuation.Run();
}
}
}
My SynchronizationContext.Post thus becomes:
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
_workQueue.TryAdd(new Continuation(d, state));
}
And our entry point, basically the equivalent of an async main from synchronous context (simplified version from original source):
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(new BlockingSynchronizationContext(_workQueue));
var mainTask = main(); // schedule "main" task
mainTask.ContinueWith(task => _workQueue.CompleteAdding());
RunMessageLoop();
return mainTask.Result;
All of this is costly and we can't just go replace calls to async methods with this but it does allow us to rather quickly create the facilities required to keep writing async code where needed without having to deal with the whole program. It's also very clear from this implementation where the worker threads go and how the impact concurrency of your program.
I look at this and think to myself, yeap, that's how Node.js does it. Though JavaScript does not have this nice async/await language support that C# currently does.
As an added bonus, I have complete control of the degree of parallelism, and if I want, I can run my async tasks completely single threaded. Though, If I do so and call Wait or Result on any task, it will deadlock the program because it will block the only message loop available.

How to track if an async/awaitable task is running

I'm trying to transition from the Event-based Asynchronous Pattern where I tracked running methods using unique id's and the asynoperationmanager. As this has now been dropped from Windows 8 Apps I'm trying to get a similar effect with Async/Await but can't quite figure out how.
What I'm trying to achieve is something like
private async Task updateSomething()
{
if(***the method is already running***)
{
runagain = true;
}
else
{
await someMethod();
if (runagain)
{
run the method again
}
}
}
The part I'm struggling with is finding out if the method is running. I've tried creating a Task and looking at the status of both that and the .status of the async method but they don't appear to be the correct place to look.
Thanks
UPDATE: This is the current code I use in .net 4 to achieve the same result. _updateMetaDataAsync is a class based on the Event-Based Asynchronous Pattern.
private void updateMetaData()
{
if (_updateMetaDataAsync.IsTaskRunning(_updateMetaDataGuid_CheckAllFiles))
{
_updateMetaDataGuid_CheckAllFiles_Again = true;
}
else
{
_updateMetaDataGuid_CheckAllFiles_Again = false;
_updateMetaDataAsync.UpdateMetaDataAsync(_updateMetaDataGuid_CheckAllFiles);
}
}
private void updateMetaDataCompleted(object sender, UpdateMetaDataCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (_updateMetaDataGuid_CheckAllFiles_Again)
{
updateMetaData();
}
}

async/await itself is intended to be used to create sequential operations executed asynchronously from the UI thread. You can get it to do parallel operations, but generally the operations "join" back to the UI thread with some sort of result. (there's also the possibility of doing "fire-and-forget" types of asynchronous operations with await but it's not recommended). i.e. there's nothing inherent to async/await to support progress reporting.
You can get progress out of code using async/await; but you need to use new progress interfaces like IProgress<T>. For more info on progress reporting with async/await, see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2012/06/06/async-in-4-5-enabling-progress-and-cancellation-in-async-apis.aspx. Migrating to this should just be a matter of calling an IProgress delegate instead of a Progress event.

If you're using a Task you've created, you can check the Task's Status property (or just see Task.IsCompleted if completion is the only state you are interested in).
That being said, await will not "return" until the operation either completes, raises an exception, or cancels. You can basically safely assume that, if you're still waiting on the "await", your task hasn't completed.

SemaphoreSlim queueToAccessQueue = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
object queueLock = new object();
long queuedRequests = 0;
Task _loadingTask;
public void RetrieveItems() {
lock (queueLock) {
queuedRequests++;
if (queuedRequests == 1) { // 1 is the minimum size of the queue before another instance is queued
_loadingTask = _loadingTask?.ContinueWith(async () => {
RunTheMethodAgain();
await queueToAccessQueue.WaitAsync();
queuedRequests = 0; // indicates that the queue has been cleared;
queueToAccessQueue.Release()
}) ?? Task.Run(async () => {
RunTheMethodAgain();
await queueToAccessQueue.WaitAsync();
queuedRequests = 0; // indicates that the queue has been cleared;
queueToAccessQueue.Release();
});
}
}
}
public void RunTheMethodAgain() {
** run the method again **
}
The added bonus is that you can see how many items are sitting in the queue!