We Keep Coding

Synchronous I/O within an async/await-based Windows Service

Let's say I have a Windows Service which is doing some bit of work, then sleeping for a short amount of time, over and over forever (until the service is shut down). So in the service's OnStart, I could start up a thread whose entry point is something like:
private void WorkerThreadFunc()
{
while (!shuttingDown)
{
DoSomething();
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
}
And in the service's OnStop, I somehow set that shuttingDown flag and then join the thread. Actually there might be several such threads, and other threads too, all started in OnStart and shut down/joined in OnStop.
If I want to instead do this sort of thing in an async/await based Windows Service, it seems like I could have OnStart create cancelable tasks but not await (or wait) on them, and have OnStop cancel those tasks and then Task.WhenAll().Wait() on them. If I understand correctly, the equivalent of the "WorkerThreadFunc" shown above might be something like:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
cancel.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DoSomething();
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Question #1: Uh... right? I am new to async/await and still trying to get my head around it.
Assuming that's right, now let's say that DoSomething() call is (or includes) a synchronous write I/O to some piece of hardware. If I'm understanding correctly:
Question #2: That is bad? I shouldn't be doing synchronous I/O within a Task in an async/await-based program? Because it ties up a thread from the thread pool while the I/O is happening, and threads from the thread pool are a highly limited resource? Please note that I might have dozens of such Workers going simultaneously to different pieces of hardware.
I am not sure I'm understanding that correctly - I am getting the idea that it's bad from articles like Stephen Cleary's "Task.Run Etiquette Examples: Don't Use Task.Run for the Wrong Thing", but that's specifically about it being bad to do blocking work within Task.Run. I'm not sure if it's also bad if I'm just doing it directly, as in the "private async Task Work()" example above?
Assuming that's bad too, then if I understand correctly I should instead utilize the nonblocking version of DoSomething (creating a nonblocking version of it if it doesn't already exist), and then:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
cancel.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
await DoSomethingAsync(cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Question #3: But... what if DoSomething is from a third party library, which I must use and cannot alter, and that library doesn't expose a nonblocking version of DoSomething? It's just a black box set in stone that at some point does a blocking write to a piece of hardware.
Maybe I wrap it and use TaskCompletionSource? Something like:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
cancel.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
await WrappedDoSomething().ConfigureAwait(false);
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
private Task WrappedDoSomething()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
DoSomething();
tcs.SetResult(null);
return tcs.Task;
}
But that seems like it's just pushing the issue down a bit further rather than resolving it. WorkAsync() will still block when it calls WrappedDoSomething(), and only get to the "await" for that after WrappedDoSomething() has already completed the blocking work. Right?
Given that (if I understand correctly) in the general case async/await should be allowed to "spread" all the way up and down in a program, would this mean that if I need to use such a library, I essentially should not make the program async/await-based? I should go back to the Thread/WorkerThreadFunc/Thread.Sleep world?
What if an async/await-based program already exists, doing other things, but now additional functionality that uses such a library needs to be added to it? Does that mean that the async/await-based program should be rewritten as a Thread/etc.-based program?

Actually there might be several such threads, and other threads too, all started in OnStart and shut down/joined in OnStop.
On a side note, it's usually simpler to have a single "master" thread that will start/join all the others. Then OnStart/OnStop just deals with the master thread.
If I want to instead do this sort of thing in an async/await based Windows Service, it seems like I could have OnStart create cancelable tasks but not await (or wait) on them, and have OnStop cancel those tasks and then Task.WhenAll().Wait() on them.
That's a perfectly acceptable approach.
If I understand correctly, the equivalent of the "WorkerThreadFunc" shown above might be something like:
Probably want to pass the CancellationToken down; cancellation can be used by synchronous code, too:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
DoSomething(cancel);
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Question #1: Uh... right? I am new to async/await and still trying to get my head around it.
It's not wrong, but it only saves you one thread on a Win32 service, which doesn't do much for you.
Question #2: That is bad? I shouldn't be doing synchronous I/O within a Task in an async/await-based program? Because it ties up a thread from the thread pool while the I/O is happening, and threads from the thread pool are a highly limited resource? Please note that I might have dozens of such Workers going simultaneously to different pieces of hardware.
Dozens of threads are not a lot. Generally, asynchronous I/O is better because it doesn't use any threads at all, but in this case you're on the desktop, so threads are not a highly limited resource. async is most beneficial on UI apps (where the UI thread is special and needs to be freed), and ASP.NET apps that need to scale (where the thread pool limits scalability).
Bottom line: calling a blocking method from an asynchronous method is not bad but it's not the best, either. If there is an asynchronous method, call that instead. But if there isn't, then just keep the blocking call and document it in the XML comments for that method (because an asynchronous method blocking is rather surprising behavior).
I am getting the idea that it's bad from articles like Stephen Cleary's "Task.Run Etiquette Examples: Don't Use Task.Run for the Wrong Thing", but that's specifically about it being bad to do blocking work within Task.Run.
Yes, that is specifically about using Task.Run to wrap synchronous methods and pretend they're asynchronous. It's a common mistake; all it does is trade one thread pool thread for another.
Assuming that's bad too, then if I understand correctly I should instead utilize the nonblocking version of DoSomething (creating a nonblocking version of it if it doesn't already exist)
Asynchronous is better (in terms of resource utilization - that is, fewer threads used), so if you want/need to reduce the number of threads, you should use async.
Question #3: But... what if DoSomething is from a third party library, which I must use and cannot alter, and that library doesn't expose a nonblocking version of DoSomething? It's just a black box set in stone that at some point does a blocking write to a piece of hardware.
Then just call it directly.
Maybe I wrap it and use TaskCompletionSource?
No, that doesn't do anything useful. That just calls it synchronously and then returns an already-completed task.
But that seems like it's just pushing the issue down a bit further rather than resolving it. WorkAsync() will still block when it calls WrappedDoSomething(), and only get to the "await" for that after WrappedDoSomething() has already completed the blocking work. Right?
Yup.
Given that (if I understand correctly) in the general case async/await should be allowed to "spread" all the way up and down in a program, would this mean that if I need to use such a library, I essentially should not make the program async/await-based? I should go back to the Thread/WorkerThreadFunc/Thread.Sleep world?
Assuming you already have a blocking Win32 service, it's probably fine to just keep it as it is. If you are writing a new one, personally I would make it async to reduce threads and allow asynchronous APIs, but you don't have to do it either way. I prefer Tasks over Threads in general, since it's much easier to get results from Tasks (including exceptions).
The "async all the way" rule only goes one way. That is, once you call an async method, then its caller should be async, and its caller should be async, etc. It does not mean that every method called by an async method must be async.
So, one good reason to have an async Win32 service would be if there's an async-only API you need to consume. That would cause your DoSomething method to become async DoSomethingAsync.
What if an async/await-based program already exists, doing other things, but now additional functionality that uses such a library needs to be added to it? Does that mean that the async/await-based program should be rewritten as a Thread/etc.-based program?
No. You can always just block from an async method. With proper documentation so when you are reusing/maintaining this code a year from now, you don't swear at your past self. :)

If you still spawn your threads, well, yes, it's bad. Because it will not give you any benefit as the thread is still allocated and consuming resources for the specific purpose of running your worker function. Running a few threads to be able to do work in parallel within a service has a minimal impact on your application.
If DoSomething() is synchronous, you could switch to the Timer class instead. It allows multiple timers to use a smaller amount of threads.
If it's important that the jobs can complete, you can modify your worker classes like this:
SemaphoreSlim _shutdownEvent = new SemaphoreSlim(0,1);
public async Task Stop()
{
return await _shutdownEvent.WaitAsync();
}
private void WorkerThreadFunc()
{
while (!shuttingDown)
{
DoSomething();
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
_shutdownEvent.Release();
}
.. which means that during shutdown you can do this:
var tasks = myServices.Select(x=> x.Stop());
Task.WaitAll(tasks);

A thread can only do one thing at a time. While it is working on your DoSomething it can't do anything else.
In an interview Eric Lippert described async-await in a restaurant metaphor. He suggests to use async-await only for functionality where your thread can do other things instead of waiting for a process to complete, like respond to operator input.
Alas, your thread is not waiting, it is doing hard work in DoSomething. And as long as DoSomething is not awaiting, your thread will not return from DoSomething to do the next thing.
So if your thread has something meaningful to do while procedure DoSomething is executing, it's wise to let another thread do the DoSomething, while your original thread is doing the meaningful stuff. Task.Run( () => DoSomething()) could do this for you. As long as the thread that called Task.Run doesn't await for this task, it is free to do other things.
You also want to cancel your process. DoSomething can't be cancelled. So even if cancellation is requested you'll have to wait until DoSomething is completed.
Below is your DoSomething in a form with a Start button and a Cancel button. While your thread is DoingSomething, one of the meaningful things your GUI thread may want to do is respond to pressing the cancel button:
void CancellableDoSomething(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
DoSomething()
}
}
async Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken token)
{
var task = Task.Run(CancellableDoSomething(token), token);
// if you have something meaningful to do, do it now, otherwise:
return Task;
}
CancellationTokenSource cancellationTokenSource = null;
private async void OnButtonStartSomething_Clicked(object sender, ...)
{
if (cancellationTokenSource != null)
// already doing something
return
// else: not doing something: start doing something
cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationtokenSource()
var task = AwaitDoSomethingAsync(cancellationTokenSource.Token);
// if you have something meaningful to do, do it now, otherwise:
await task;
cancellationTokenSource.Dispose();
cancellationTokenSource = null;
}
private void OnButtonCancelSomething(object sender, ...)
{
if (cancellationTokenSource == null)
// not doing something, nothing to cancel
return;
// else: cancel doing something
cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
}

What code is actually executed "multi-threadedly" in async/await pattern?

In this code:
public async Task v_task()
{
await Task.Run(() => Console.WriteLine("Hello!"));
}
public async void v1()
{
await v_task();
// some other actions...
}
public void ButtonClick()
{
v1();
Console.WriteLine("Hi!");
}
Which methods above are actually executed in parallel in the async/await generated lower thread pool if ButtonClick is called?
I mean, what should be my concerns about race conditions working with async/await? All async methods are mandatory executed in the same caller's thread? Should I use mutex on possible shared state? If yes, how could I detect what are the shared state objects?

Which methods above are actually executed in parallel in the async/await generated lower thread pool if ButtonClick is called?
Only the Console.WriteLine within the Task.Run.
I mean, what should be my concerns about race conditions working with async/await?
I suggest you start by reading my async intro, which explains how await actually works.
In summary, async methods are usually written in a serially asynchronous fashion. Take this code for example:
CodeBeforeAwait();
await SomeOtherMethodAsync();
CodeAfterAwait();
You can always say that CodeBeforeAwait will execute to completion first, then SomeOtherMethodAsync will be called. Then our method will (asynchronously) wait for SomeOtherMethodAsync to complete, and only after that will CodeAfterAwait be called.
So it's serially asynchronous. It executes in a serial fashion, just like you'd expect it to, but also with an asynchronous point in that flow (the await).
Now, you can't say that CodeBeforeAwait and CodeAfterAwait will execute within the same thread, at least not without more context. await by default will resume in the current SynchronizationContext (or the current TaskScheduler if there is no SyncCtx). So, if the sample method above was executed in the UI thread, then you would know that CodeBeforeAwait and CodeAfterAwait will both execute on the UI thread. However, if it was executed without a context (i.e., from a background thread or Console main thread), then CodeAfterAwait may run on a different thread.
Note that even if parts of a method run on a different thread, the runtime takes care of putting any barriers in place before continuing the method, so there's no need to barrier around variable access.
Also note that your original example uses Task.Run, which explicitly places work on the thread pool. That's quite different than async/await, and you will definitely have to treat that as multithreaded.
Should I use mutex on possible shared state?
Yes. For example, if your code uses Task.Run, then you'll need to treat that as a separate thread. (Note that with await, it's a lot easier to not share state at all with other threads - if you can keep your background tasks pure, they're much easier to work with).
If yes, how could I detect what are the shared state objects?
Same answer as with any other kind of multi-threaded code: code inspection.

If you call an async function, your thread will perform this function until it reaches an await.
If you weren't using async-await, the thread would yield processing until the awaited code was finished and continue with the statement after the await.
But as you are using async-await, you told the compiler that whenever the thread has to wait for something, you have some other things it can do instead of waiting, The thread will do those other things until you say: now await until your original thing is finished.
Because of the call to an async function we are certain that somewhere inside there should be an await. Note that if you call an async function that doesn't await you get a compiler warning that the function will run synchronously.
Example:
private async void OnButton1_clickec(object sender, ...)
{
string dataToSave = ...;
var saveTask = this.MyOpenFile.SaveAsync(dataToSave);
// the thread will go into the SaveAsync function and will
// do all things until it sees an await.
// because of the async SaveAsync we know there is somewhere an await
// As you didn't say await this.MyOpenfile.SaveAsync
// the thread will not wait but continue with the following
// statements:
DoSomethingElse()
await saveTask;
// here we see the await. The thread was doing something else,
// finished it, and now we say: await. That means it waits until its
// internal await is finished and continues with the statements after
// this internal await.
Note that even if the await somewhere inside SaveAsync was finished, the thread will not perform the next statement until you await SaveTask. This has the effect that DoSomethingElse will not be interrupted if the await inside the SaveAsync was finished.
Therefore normally it's not useful to create an async function that does not return either a Task or a Task < TResult >
The only exception to this is an event handler. The GUI doesn't have to wait until your event handler is finished.

async Task - What actually happens on the CPU?

I've been reading about Tasks after asking this question and seeing that I completely misunderstood the concept. Answers such as the top answers here and here explain the idea, but I still don't get it.
So I've made this a very specific question: What actually happens on the CPU when a Task is executed?
This is what I've understood after some reading: A Task will share CPU time with the caller (and let's assume the caller is the "UI") so that if it's CPU-intensive - it will slow down the UI. If the Task is not CPU-intensive - it will be running "in the background". Seems clear enough …… until tested. The following code should allow the user to click on the button, and then alternately show "Shown" and "Button". But in reality: the Form is completely busy (-no user input possible) until the "Shown"s are all shown.
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
Shown += Form1_Shown;
}
private async void Form1_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Doit("Shown");
}
private async Task Doit(string s)
{
WebClient client = new WebClient();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
client.DownloadData(uri);//This is here in order to delay the Text writing without much CPU use.
textBox1.Text += s + "\r\n";
this.Update();//textBox1.
}
}
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Doit("Button");
}
Can someone please tell me what is actually happening on the CPU when a Task is executed (e.g. "When the CPU is not used by the UI, the Task uses it, except for when… etc.")?

The key to understanding this is that there are two kinds of tasks - one that executes code (what I call Delegate Tasks), and one that represents a future event (what I call Promise Tasks). Those two tasks are completely different, even though they're both represented by an instance of Task in .NET. I have some pretty pictures on my blog that may help understand how these types of task are different.
Delegate Tasks are the ones created by Task.Run and friends. They execute code on the thread pool (or possibly another TaskScheduler if you're using a TaskFactory). Most of the "task parallel library" documentation deals with Delegate Tasks. These are used to spread CPU-bound algorithms across multiple CPUs, or to push CPU-bound work off a UI thread.
Promise Tasks are the ones created by TaskCompletionSource<T> and friends (including async). These are the ones used for asynchronous programming, and are a natural fit for I/O-bound code.
Note that your example code will cause a compiler warning to the effect that your "asynchronous" method Doit is not actually asynchronous but is instead synchronous. So as it stands right now, it will synchronously call DownloadData, blocking the UI thread until the download completes, and then it will update the text box and finally return an already-completed task.
To make it asynchronous, you have to use await:
private async Task Doit(string s)
{
WebClient client = new WebClient();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
await client.DownloadDataTaskAsync(uri);
textBox1.Text += s + "\r\n";
this.Update();//textBox1.
}
}
Now it's returning an incomplete task when it hits the await, which allows the UI thread to return to its message processing loop. When the download completes, the remainder of this method will be queued to the UI thread as a message, and it will resume executing that method when it gets around to it. When the Doit method completes, then the task it returned earlier will complete.
So, tasks returned by async methods logically represent that method. The task itself is a Promise Task, not a Delegate Task, and does not actually "execute". The method is split into multiple parts (at each await point) and executes in chunks, but the task itself does not execute anywhere.
For further reading, I have a blog post on how async and await actually work (and how they schedule the chunks of the method), and another blog post on why asynchronous I/O tasks do not need to block threads.

As per your linked answers, Tasks and Threads are totally different concepts, and you are also getting confused with async / await
A Task is just a representation of some work to be done. It says nothing about HOW that work should be done.
A Thread is a representation of some work that is running on the CPU, but is sharing the CPU time with other threads that it can know nothing about.
You can run a Task on a Thread using Task.Run(). Your Task will run asynchronously and independently of any other code providing a threadpool thread is available.
You can also run a Task asynchronously on the SAME thread using async / await. Anytime the thread hits an await, it can save the current stack state, then travel back up the stack and carry on with other work until the awaited task has finished. Your Doit() code never awaits anything, so will run synchronously on your GUI thread until complete.

Tasks use the ThreadPool you can read extensively about what it is and how it works here
But in a nutshell, when a task is executed, the Task Scheduler looks in the ThreadPool to see if there is a thread available to run the action of the task. If not, it's going to be queued until one becomes available.
A ThreadPool is just a collection of already-instantiated threads made available so that multithreaded code can safely use concurrent programming without overwhelming the CPU with context-switching all the time.
Now, the problem with your code is that even though you return an object of type Task, you are not running anything concurrently - No separate thread is ever started!
In order to do that, you have two options, either you start yourDoit method as a Task, with
Option1
Task.Run(() => DoIt(s));
This will run the whole DoIt method on another thread from the Thread Pool, but it will lead to more problems, because in this method, you're trying to access UI-controls. therefore, you will need either to marshal those calls to the UI thread, or re-think your code so that the UI access is done directly on the UI thread after the asynchronous tasks completes.
Option 2 (preferred, if you can)
You use .net APIs which are already asynchronous, such as client.DownloadDataTaskAsync(); instead of client.DownloadData();
now, in your case, the problem is that you will need to have 10 calls, which are going to return 10 different objects of type Task<byte[]> and you want to await on the completion of all of them, not just one.
In order to do this, you will need to create a List<Task<byte[]>> returnedTasks and you will add to it all returned value from DownloadDataTaskAsync(). then, once this is done, you can use the following return value for your DoIt method.
return Task.WhenAll(returnedTasks);

Why is this code running synchronously?

I am trying to understand concurrency by doing it in code. I have a code snippet which I thought was running asynchronously. But when I put the debug writeline statements in, I found that it is running synchronously. Can someone explain what I need to do differently to push ComputeBB() onto another thread using Task.Something?
Clarification I want this code to run ComputeBB in some other thread so that the main thread will keep on running without blocking.
Here is the code:
{
// part of the calling method
Debug.WriteLine("About to call ComputeBB");
returnDTM.myBoundingBox = await Task.Run(() => returnDTM.ComputeBB());
Debug.WriteLine("Just called await ComputBB.");
return returnDTM;
}
private ptsBoundingBox2d ComputeBB()
{
Debug.WriteLine("Starting ComputeBB.");
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch(); sw.Start();
var point1 = this.allPoints.FirstOrDefault().Value;
var returnBB = new ptsBoundingBox2d(
point1.x, point1.y, point1.z, point1.x, point1.y, point1.z);
Parallel.ForEach(this.allPoints,
p => returnBB.expandByPoint(p.Value.x, p.Value.y, p.Value.z)
);
sw.Stop();
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("Compute BB took {0}", sw.Elapsed));
return returnBB;
}
Here is the output in the immediate window:
About to call ComputeBB
Starting ComputeBB.
Compute BB took 00:00:00.1790574
Just called await ComputBB.
Clarification If it were really running asynchronously it would be in this order:
About to call ComputeBB
Just called await ComputBB.
Starting ComputeBB.
Compute BB took 00:00:00.1790574
But it is not.
Elaboration
The calling code has signature like so: private static async Task loadAsBinaryAsync(string fileName) At the next level up, though, I attempt to stop using async. So here is the call stack from top to bottom:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
aTinFile = ptsDTM.CreateFromExistingFile("TestSave.ptsTin");
// more stuff
}
public static ptsDTM CreateFromExistingFile(string fileName)
{
ptsDTM returnTin = new ptsDTM();
Task<ptsDTM> tsk = Task.Run(() => loadAsBinaryAsync(fileName));
returnTin = tsk.Result; // I suspect the problem is here.
return retunTin;
}
private static async Task<ptsDTM> loadAsBinaryAsync(string fileName)
{
// do a lot of processing
Debug.WriteLine("About to call ComputeBB");
returnDTM.myBoundingBox = await Task.Run(() => returnDTM.ComputeBB());
Debug.WriteLine("Just called await ComputBB.");
return returnDTM;
}

I have a code snippet which I thought was running asynchronously. But when I put the debug writeline statements in, I found that it is running synchronously.
await is used to asynchronously wait an operations completion. While doing so, it yields control back to the calling method until it's completion.
what I need to do differently to push ComputeBB() onto another thread
It is already ran on a thread pool thread. If you don't want to asynchronously wait on it in a "fire and forget" fashion, don't await the expression. Note this will have an effect on exception handling. Any exception which occurs inside the provided delegate would be captured inside the given Task, if you don't await, there is a chance they will go about unhandled.
Edit:
Lets look at this piece of code:
public static ptsDTM CreateFromExistingFile(string fileName)
{
ptsDTM returnTin = new ptsDTM();
Task<ptsDTM> tsk = Task.Run(() => loadAsBinaryAsync(fileName));
returnTin = tsk.Result; // I suspect the problem is here.
return retunTin;
}
What you're currently doing is synchronously blocking when you use tsk.Result. Also, for some reason you're calling Task.Run twice, once in each method. That is unnecessary. If you want to return your ptsDTM instance from CreateFromExistingFile, you will have to await it, there is no getting around that. "Fire and Forget" execution doesn't care about the result, at all. It simply wants to start whichever operation it needs, if it fails or succeeds is usually a non-concern. That is clearly not the case here.
You'll need to do something like this:
private PtsDtm LoadAsBinary(string fileName)
{
Debug.WriteLine("About to call ComputeBB");
returnDTM.myBoundingBox = returnDTM.ComputeBB();
Debug.WriteLine("Just called ComputeBB.");
return returnDTM;
}
And then somewhere up higher up the call stack, you don't actually need CreateFromExistingFiles, simply call:
Task.Run(() => LoadAsBinary(fileName));
When needed.
Also, please, read the C# naming conventions, which you're currently not following.

await's whole purpose is in adding the synchronicity back in asynchronous code. This allows you to easily partition the parts that are happenning synchronously and asynchronously. Your example is absurd in that it never takes any advantage whatsoever of this - if you just called the method directly instead of wrapping it in Task.Run and awaiting that, you would have had the exact same result (with less overhead).
Consider this, though:
await
Task.WhenAll
(
loadAsBinaryAsync(fileName1),
loadAsBinaryAsync(fileName2),
loadAsBinaryAsync(fileName3)
);
Again, you have the synchronicity back (await functions as the synchronization barrier), but you've actually performed three independent operations asynchronously with respect to each other.
Now, there's no reason to do something like this in your code, since you're using Parallel.ForEach at the bottom level - you're already using the CPU to the max (with unnecessary overhead, but let's ignore that for now).
So the basic usage of await is actually to handle asynchronous I/O rather than CPU work - apart from simplifying code that relies on some parts of CPU work being synchronised and some not (e.g. you have four threads of execution that simultaneously process different parts of the problem, but at some point have to be reunited to make sense of the individual parts - look at the Barrier class, for example). This includes stuff like "making sure the UI doesn't block while some CPU intensive operation happens in the background" - this makes the CPU work asynchronous with respect to the UI. But at some point, you still want to reintroduce the synchronicity, to make sure you can display the results of the work on the UI.
Consider this winforms code snippet:
async void btnDoStuff_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lblProgress.Text = "Calculating...";
var result = await DoTheUltraHardStuff();
lblProgress.Text = "Done! The result is " + result;
}
(note that the method is async void, not async Task nor async Task<T>)
What happens is that (on the GUI thread) the label is first assigned the text Calculating..., then the asynchronous DoTheUltraHardStuff method is scheduled, and then, the method returns. Immediately. This allows the GUI thread to do whatever it needs to do. However - as soon as the asynchronous task is complete and the GUI is free to handle the callback, the execution of btnDoStuff_Click will continue with the result already given (or an exception thrown, of course), back on the GUI thread, allowing you to set the label to the new text including the result of the asynchronous operation.
Asynchronicity is not an absolute property - stuff is asynchronous to some other stuff, and synchronous to some other stuff. It only makes sense with respect to some other stuff.
Hopefully, now you can go back to your original code and understand the part you've misunderstood before. The solutions are multiple, of course, but they depend a lot on how and why you're trying to do what you're trying to do. I suspect you don't actually need to use Task.Run or await at all - the Parallel.ForEach already tries to distribute the CPU work over multiple CPU cores, and the only thing you could do is to make sure other code doesn't have to wait for that work to finish - which would make a lot of sense in a GUI application, but I don't see how it would be useful in a console application with the singular purpose of calculating that single thing.
So yes, you can actually use await for fire-and-forget code - but only as part of code that doesn't prevent the code you want to continue from executing. For example, you could have code like this:
Task<string> result = SomeHardWorkAsync();
Debug.WriteLine("After calling SomeHardWorkAsync");
DoSomeOtherWorkInTheMeantime();
Debug.WriteLine("Done other work.");
Debug.WriteLine("Got result: " + (await result));
This allows SomeHardWorkAsync to execute asynchronously with respect to DoSomeOtherWorkInTheMeantime but not with respect to await result. And of course, you can use awaits in SomeHardWorkAsync without trashing the asynchronicity between SomeHardWorkAsync and DoSomeOtherWorkInTheMeantime.
The GUI example I've shown way above just takes advantage of handling the continuation as something that happens after the task completes, while ignoring the Task created in the async method (there really isn't much of a difference between using async void and async Task when you ignore the result). So for example, to fire-and-forget your method, you could use code like this:
async void Fire(string filename)
{
var result = await ProcessFileAsync(filename);
DoStuffWithResult(result);
}
Fire("MyFile");
This will cause DoStuffWithResult to execute as soon as result is ready, while the method Fire itself will return immediately after executing ProcessFileAsync (up to the first await or any explicit return someTask).
This pattern is usually frowned upon - there really isn't any reason to return void out of an async method (apart from event handlers); you could just as easily return Task (or even Task<T> depending on the scenario), and let the caller decide whether he wants his code to execute synchronously in respect to yours or not.
Again,
async Task FireAsync(string filename)
{
var result = await ProcessFileAsync(filename);
DoStuffWithResult(result);
}
Fire("MyFile");
does the same thing as using async void, except that the caller can decide what to do with the asynchronous task. Perhaps he wants to launch two of those in parallel and continue after all are done? He can just await Task.WhenAll(Fire("1"), Fire("2")). Or he just wants that stuff to happen completely asynchronously with respect to his code, so he'll just call Fire("1") and ignore the resulting Task (of course, ideally, you at the very least want to handle possible exceptions).

How does the runtime know when to spawn a thread when using "await"?

EDIT
I took Jon's comment and retried the whole thing. And indeed, it is blocking the UI thread. I must have messed up my initial test somehow. The string "OnResume exits" is written after SomeAsync has finished. If the method is changed to use await Task.WhenAll(t) it will (as expected) not block. Thanks for the input!
I was first thinking about deleting the question because the initial assumption was just wrong but I think the answers contains valuable information that should not be lost.
The original post:
Trying to understand the deeper internals of async-await. The example below is from an Android app using Xamarin. OnResume() executes on the UI thread.
SomeAsync() starts a new task (= it spawns a thread). Then it is using Task.WaitAll() to perform a blocking wait (let's not discuss now if WhenAll() would be a better option).
I can see that the UI is not getting blocked while Task.WaitAll() is running. So SomeAsync() does not run on the UI thread. This means that a new thread was created.
How does the await "know" that it has to spawn a thread here - will it always do it? If I change the WaitAll() to WhenAll(), there would not be a need for an additional thread as fast as I understand.
// This runs on the UI thread.
async override OnResume()
{
// What happens here? Not necessarily a new thread I suppose. But what else?
Console.WriteLine ("OnResume is about to call an async method.");
await SomeAsync();
// Here we are back on the current sync context, which is the UI thread.
SomethingElse();
Console.WriteLine ("OnResume exits");
}
Task<int> SomeAsync()
{
var t = Task.Factory.StartNew (() => {
Console.WriteLine("Working really hard!");
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done working.");
});
Task.WhenAll (t);
return Task.FromResult (42);
}

Simple: it never spawns a thread for await. If the awaitable has already completed, it just keeps running; if the awaitable has not completed, it simply tells the awaitable instance to add a continuation (via a fairly complex state machine). When the thing that is being completed completes, that will invoke the continuations (typically via the sync-context, if one - else synchronously on the thread that is marking the work as complete). However! The sync-context could theoretically be one that chooses to push things onto the thread-pool (most UI sync-contexts, however, push things to the UI thread).

I think you will find this thread interesting: How does C# 5.0's async-await feature differ from the TPL?
In short, await does not start any threads.
What it does, is just "splitting" the code into at the point where the, let's say, line where 'await' is placed, and everything that that line is added as continuation to the Task.
Note the Task. And note that you've got Factory.StartNew. So, in your code, it is the Factory who actually starts the task - and it includes placing it on some thread, be it UI or pool or any other task scheduler. This means, that the "Task" is usually already assigned to some scheduler when you perform the await.
Of course, it does not have to be assigned, nor started at all. The only important thing is that you need to have a Task, any, really.
If the Task is not started - the await does not care. It simply attaches continuation, and it's up to you to start the task later. And to assign it to proper scheduler.