We Keep Coding

How to force an ActionBlock to complete fast

According to the documentation:
A dataflow block is considered completed when it is not currently processing a message and when it has guaranteed that it will not process any more messages.
This behavior is not ideal in my case. I want to be able to cancel the job at any time, but the processing of each individual action takes a long time. So when I cancel the token, the effect is not immediate. I must wait for the currently processed item to complete. I have no way to cancel the actions directly, because the API I use is not cancelable. Can I do anything to make the block ignore the currently running action, and complete instantly?
Here is an example that demonstrates my problem. The token is canceled after 500 msec, and the duration of each action is 1000 msec:
static async Task Main()
{
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(500);
var block = new ActionBlock<int>(async x =>
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions() { CancellationToken = cts.Token });
block.Post(1); // I must wait for this one to complete
block.Post(2); // This one is ignored
block.Complete();
var stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
try
{
await block.Completion;
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Canceled after {stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds} msec");
}
}
Output:
Canceled after 1035 msec
The desired output would be a cancellation after ~500 msec.

Based on this excerpt from your comment...:
What I want to happen in case of a cancellation request is to ignore the currently running workitem. I don't care about it any more, so why I have to wait for it?
...and assuming you are truly OK with leaving the Task running, you can simply wrap the job you wish to call inside another Task which will constantly poll for cancellation or completion, and cancel that Task instead. Take a look at the following "proof-of-concept" code that wraps a "long-running" task inside another Task "tasked" with constantly polling the wrapped task for completion, and a CancellationToken for cancellation (completely "spur-of-the-moment" status, you will want to re-adapt it a bit of course):
public class LongRunningTaskSource
{
public Task LongRunning(int milliseconds)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting long running task");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
Console.WriteLine("Finished long running task");
});
}
public Task LongRunningTaskWrapper(int milliseconds, CancellationToken token)
{
Task task = LongRunning(milliseconds);
Task wrapperTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
//Check for completion (you could, of course, do different things
//depending on whether it is faulted or completed).
if (!(task.Status == TaskStatus.Running))
break;
//Check for cancellation.
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Console.WriteLine("Aborting Task.");
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
}
}, token);
return wrapperTask;
}
}
Using the following code:
static void Main()
{
LongRunningTaskSource longRunning = new LongRunningTaskSource();
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource(1500);
Task task = longRunning.LongRunningTaskWrapper(3000, cts.Token);
//Sleep long enough to let things roll on their own.
Thread.Sleep(5000);
Console.WriteLine("Ended Main");
}
...produces the following output:
Starting long running task
Aborting Task.
Exception thrown: 'System.OperationCanceledException' in mscorlib.dll
Finished long running task
Ended Main
The wrapped Task obviously completes in its own good time. If you don't have a problem with that, which is often not the case, hopefully, this should fit your needs.
As a supplementary example, running the following code (letting the wrapped Task finish before time-out):
static void Main()
{
LongRunningTaskSource longRunning = new LongRunningTaskSource();
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource(3000);
Task task = longRunning.LongRunningTaskWrapper(1500, cts.Token);
//Sleep long enough to let things roll on their own.
Thread.Sleep(5000);
Console.WriteLine("Ended Main");
}
...produces the following output:
Starting long running task
Finished long running task
Ended Main
So the task started and finished before timeout and nothing had to be cancelled. Of course nothing is blocked while waiting. As you probably already know, of course, if you know what is being used behind the scenes in the long-running code, it would be good to clean up if necessary.
Hopefully, you can adapt this example to pass something like this to your ActionBlock.
Disclaimer & Notes
I am not familiar with the TPL Dataflow library, so this is just a workaround, of course. Also, if all you have is, for example, a synchronous method call that you do not have any influence on at all, then you will obviously need two tasks. One wrapper task to wrap the synchronous call and another one to wrap the wrapper task to include continuous status polling and cancellation checks.

Ensuring that an async task has fully cancelled before restarting that task

OK, here goes: I have a part of an application where I am querying rows from a database. I perform the query when the user enters text into a search box (or alters another filter setting).
The data that is returned from the database is going into an ObservableCollection which is bound to a DataGrid. Because I'm conscious of keeping the UI responsive, I'm using Async-Await to (attempt) to fill this ObservableCollection in the background.
So, in my mind, every time the user types something (or changes the filter settings) I want to cancel the ongoing task wait for it to confirm it's cancelled and then "restart" (or rather create a new task) with the new settings.
But I'm getting all sorts of weird results (especially when I slow down the task to simulate slow database access) such as the collection not getting cleared and being populated twice and when disposing the CancellationTokenSource (which I read is a good idea) sometimes when I get to the point of calling Cancel() it's been disposed in the meantime and I get an exception.
I suspect that the issue stems from a fundamental gap in my understanding of the pattern I'm meant to use here so any style/pattern pointers are as welcome as an actual technical solution.
The code basically goes like this:
ObservableCollection<Thing> _thingCollection;
Task _thingUpdaterTask;
CancellationTokenSource _thingUpdaterCancellationSource;
// initialisation etc. here
async void PopulateThings(ThingFilterSettings settings)
{
// try to cancel any ongoing task
if(_thingUpdaterTask?.IsCompleted ?? false){
_thingUpdaterCancellationSource.Cancel();
await _thingUpdaterTask;
}
// I'm hoping that any ongoing task is now done with,
// but in reality that isn't happening. I'm guessing
// that's because Tasks are getting dereferenced and
// orphaned in concurrent calls to this method?
_thingCollection.Clear();
_thingUpdaterCancellationSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var cancellationToken = _thingUpdaterCancellationSource.Token;
var progressHandler = new Progress<Thing>(x => _thingCollection.add(x));
var progress = (IProgress<Thing>)progressHandler;
try{
_thingUpdaterTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => GetThings(settings, progress, cancellationToken));
await _thingUpdaterTask;
}catch(AggregateException e){
//handle stuff etc.
}finally{
// should I be disposing the Token Source here?
}
}
void GetThings(ThingFilterSettings settings,
IProgress<Thing> progress,
CancellationToken ctok){
foreach(var thingy in SomeGetThingsMethod(settings)){
if(ctok.IsCancellationRequested){
break;
}
progress.Report(thingy);
}
}

You could add a wrapper class, that will wait for the previous task execution to stop (either by finishing or by canceling) before starting the new task.
public class ChainableTask
{
private readonly Task _task;
private readonly CancellationTokenSource _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
public ChainableTask(Func<CancellationToken, Task> asyncAction,
ChainableTask previous = null)
{
_task = Execute(asyncAction, previous);
}
private async Task CancelAsync()
{
try
{
_cts.Cancel();
await _task;
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{ }
}
private async Task Execute(Func<CancellationToken, Task> asyncAction, ChainableTask previous)
{
if (previous != null)
await previous.CancelAsync();
if (_cts.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
await asyncAction(_cts.Token);
}
}
If used the class above in previous projects. The class takes a lambda, the asyncAction to create the next task. The task is only created after the previous has finished.
It will pass a CancellationToken to each task, to allow the task to stop before finishing. Before the starting the next task, the token of the previous is canceled and the previous task is awaited. This happens in CancelAsync.
Only after the previous Cancel was awaited, we call the lambda to create the next task.
A usage example:
var firstAction = new ChainableTask(async tcs => await Task.Delay(1000));
var secondAction = new ChainableTask(async tcs => await Task.Delay(1000), firstAction ); // pass the previous action
In this example, the created task does not support cancellation, so the second call to ChainableTask will wait until the first Task.Delay(1000) finishes, before calling the second.

Task cancellation from inside the task body

I read about the Cancellation methods but based on my understanding they all provide control over tasks from outside the task, but if i want to cancel a task from the inside.
For example in this pseudo code:
Task tasks = new Task(() =>
{
bool exists = CheckFromDB();
if (!exists)
break;
}
Can i cancel a task from the inside?
The only idea i got is to trigger an exception inside the task and handle it from outside but surly that is not the way to do.

If you want to truly Cancel the task (e.g. after it's completed the Status property would be set to Canceled), you can do it this way:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = cts.Token;
Task innerCancel = new Task(
() =>
{
if (!CheckFromDB())
{
cts.Cancel();
}
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
},
token);
When you use return task won't be actually canceled, but rather code after the return statement won't be executed, and the task itself will have its state as RanToCompletion.
On a side note it's advised to use Task.Factory.StartNew for .NET 4 and Task.Run for .NET 4.5 instead of constructor to create tasks.

The lambda expression code inside a task behaves just the same as in any other method. If you want to end the task for some reason you can just simply return:
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
{
if(!CheckFromDB())
{
return;
}
}
You can also throw an exception. That will end the task and mark it as faulted but there's no reason to do so if you can avoid it. If you are really responding to some problem that you can't overcome, then yes, just throw an exception.

How to cancel a task from a TaskCompletionSource?

I'm trying to create an async ProducerConsumerCollection and for that, I'm using this msdn page (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh873173.aspx (bottom of the page)).
I'm now trying to add a timeout, here is what I do :
public async Task<T> TakeWithTimeout(int timeout)
{
Task<T> takeTask = this.Take();
if (timeout <= 0 || takeTask == await Task.WhenAny(this.tasks.Take(), Task.Delay(timeout)))
{
return await takeTask;
}
else
{
// Timeout
return default(T);
}
}
}
The problem with this code is that, in case of timeout, it does not cancel the task created by the Take() method.
Since this task has been "created" by the TaskCompletionSource, I cannot give it a cancellationToken?
So, how to proceed to cancel it and properly implement this Take with timeout ?
Thanks :)

Writing a cancel-safe async-friendly producer/consumer collection is non-trivial. What you need to do is change Take to accept a CancellationToken as a parameter, and it should register a handler so that when it is cancelled the TaskCompletionSource is cancelled.
I highly recommend you use BufferBlock<T>, which has cancellation support built-in.
If you can't use TPL Dataflow (e.g., you're working in a PCL or have target platforms unsupported by Dataflow), then you can use the producer/consumer collections in my open-source AsyncEx library (such as AsyncProducerConsumerQueue or AsyncCollection). These are both based on AsyncLock and AsyncConditionVariable, a design I describe briefly on my blog (which does not get into the cancellation details). The key behind supporting cancellation in a producer/consumer collection with this design is to support cancellation in AsyncConditionVariable.WaitAsync; once your condition variable type supports cancellation, then your collection will easily support it, too.

I'm just going to post my solution to the question How to cancel a task from a TaskCompletionSource because that is what I needed myself.
I'm guessing this could be used for your specific need, but it's not tied to a specific timeout functionality, so this is a general solution (or so I hope).
This is an extension method:
public static async Task WaitAsync<T>(this TaskCompletionSource<T> tcs, CancellationToken ctok)
{
CancellationTokenSource cts = null;
CancellationTokenSource linkedCts = null;
try {
cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
linkedCts = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(cts.Token, ctok);
var exitTok = linkedCts.Token;
Func<Task> listenForCancelTaskFnc = async () => {
await Task.Delay(-1, exitTok).ConfigureAwait(false);
};
var cancelTask = listenForCancelTaskFnc();
await Task.WhenAny(new Task[] { tcs.Task, cancelTask }).ConfigureAwait(false);
cts.Cancel();
} finally {
if(linkedCts != null) linkedCts.Dispose();
}
}
Usage:
async Task TestAsync(CancellationToken ctok) {
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
if (somethingOrTheOther) {
tcs.TrySetResult(true);
}
await tcs.WaitAsync(ctok);
}
The idea is to have a supervisory async Task waiting essentially forever until it is cancelled, which we can use to 'exit early' in case the TaskCompletionSource is not yet satisfied, but we need to exit anyhow due to a cancel request.
The supervisory Task is guaranteed to be cancelled at the end of WaitAsync regardless how it falls out of the WhenAny. Either the TaskCompletionSource is satisfied with a result, and WhenAny completes, briefly leaving the supervisory sleeper task in tact until the next line where cts.Cancel() is called, or it was cancelled with the exitToken, which is a combined token of the passed in ctok or the internal one cts.Token.
Anyhow, I hope this makes sense -- please let me know if this code has any problems...

Aborting a long running task in TPL

Our application uses the TPL to serialize (potentially) long running units of work. The creation of work (tasks) is user-driven and may be cancelled at any time. In order to have a responsive user interface, if the current piece of work is no longer required we would like to abandon what we were doing, and immediately start a different task.
Tasks are queued up something like this:
private Task workQueue;
private void DoWorkAsync
(Action<WorkCompletedEventArgs> callback, CancellationToken token)
{
if (workQueue == null)
{
workQueue = Task.Factory.StartWork
(() => DoWork(callback, token), token);
}
else
{
workQueue.ContinueWork(t => DoWork(callback, token), token);
}
}
The DoWork method contains a long running call, so it is not as simple as constantly checking the status of token.IsCancellationRequested and bailing if/when a cancel is detected. The long running work will block the Task continuations until it finishes, even if the task is cancelled.
I have come up with two sample methods to work around this issue, but am not convinced that either are proper. I created simple console applications to demonstrate how they work.
The important point to note is that the continuation fires before the original task completes.
Attempt #1: An inner task
static void Main(string[] args)
{
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = cts.Token;
token.Register(() => Console.WriteLine("Token cancelled"));
// Initial work
var t = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Doing work");
// Wrap the long running work in a task, and then wait for it to complete
// or the token to be cancelled.
var innerT = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Thread.Sleep(3000), token);
innerT.Wait(token);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Console.WriteLine("Completed.");
}
, token);
// Second chunk of work which, in the real world, would be identical to the
// first chunk of work.
t.ContinueWith((lastTask) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Continuation started");
});
// Give the user 3s to cancel the first batch of work
Console.ReadKey();
if (t.Status == TaskStatus.Running)
{
Console.WriteLine("Cancel requested");
cts.Cancel();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
This works, but the "innerT" Task feels extremely kludgey to me. It also has the drawback of forcing me to refactor all parts of my code that queue up work in this manner, by necessitating the wrapping up of all long running calls in a new Task.
Attempt #2: TaskCompletionSource tinkering
static void Main(string[] args)
{ var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
//Wire up the token's cancellation to trigger the TaskCompletionSource's cancellation
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = cts.Token;
token.Register(() =>
{ Console.WriteLine("Token cancelled");
tcs.SetCanceled();
});
var innerT = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Doing work");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
Console.WriteLine("Completed.");
// When the work has complete, set the TaskCompletionSource so that the
// continuation will fire.
tcs.SetResult(null);
});
// Second chunk of work which, in the real world, would be identical to the
// first chunk of work.
// Note that we continue when the TaskCompletionSource's task finishes,
// not the above innerT task.
tcs.Task.ContinueWith((lastTask) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Continuation started");
});
// Give the user 3s to cancel the first batch of work
Console.ReadKey();
if (innerT.Status == TaskStatus.Running)
{
Console.WriteLine("Cancel requested");
cts.Cancel();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
Again this works, but now I have two problems:
a) It feels like I'm abusing TaskCompletionSource by never using it's result, and just setting null when I've finished my work.
b) In order to properly wire up continuations I need to keep a handle on the previous unit of work's unique TaskCompletionSource, and not the task that was created for it. This is technically possible, but again feels clunky and strange.
Where to go from here?
To reiterate, my question is: are either of these methods the "correct" way to tackle this problem, or is there a more correct/elegant solution that will allow me to prematurely abort a long running task and immediately starting a continuation? My preference is for a low-impact solution, but I'd be willing to undertake some huge refactoring if it's the right thing to do.
Alternately, is the TPL even the correct tool for the job, or am I missing a better task queuing mechanism. My target framework is .NET 4.0.

The real issue here is that the long-running call in DoWork is not cancellation-aware. If I understand correctly, what you're doing here is not really cancelling the long-running work, but merely allowing the continuation to execute and, when the work completes on the cancelled task, ignoring the result. For example, if you used the inner task pattern to call CrunchNumbers(), which takes several minutes, cancelling the outer task will allow continuation to occur, but CrunchNumbers() will continue to execute in the background until completion.
I don't think there's any real way around this other than making your long-running calls support cancellation. Often this isn't possible (they may be blocking API calls, with no API support for cancellation.) When this is the case, it's really a flaw in the API; you may check to see if there are alternate API calls that could be used to perform the operation in a way that can be cancelled. One hack approach to this is to capture a reference to the underlying Thread being used by the Task when the Task is started and then call Thread.Interrupt. This will wake up the thread from various sleep states and allow it to terminate, but in a potentially nasty way. Worst case, you can even call Thread.Abort, but that's even more problematic and not recommended.
Here is a stab at a delegate-based wrapper. It's untested, but I think it will do the trick; feel free to edit the answer if you make it work and have fixes/improvements.
public sealed class AbandonableTask
{
private readonly CancellationToken _token;
private readonly Action _beginWork;
private readonly Action _blockingWork;
private readonly Action<Task> _afterComplete;
private AbandonableTask(CancellationToken token,
Action beginWork,
Action blockingWork,
Action<Task> afterComplete)
{
if (blockingWork == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("blockingWork");
_token = token;
_beginWork = beginWork;
_blockingWork = blockingWork;
_afterComplete = afterComplete;
}
private void RunTask()
{
if (_beginWork != null)
_beginWork();
var innerTask = new Task(_blockingWork,
_token,
TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
innerTask.Start();
innerTask.Wait(_token);
if (innerTask.IsCompleted && _afterComplete != null)
{
_afterComplete(innerTask);
}
}
public static Task Start(CancellationToken token,
Action blockingWork,
Action beginWork = null,
Action<Task> afterComplete = null)
{
if (blockingWork == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("blockingWork");
var worker = new AbandonableTask(token, beginWork, blockingWork, afterComplete);
var outerTask = new Task(worker.RunTask, token);
outerTask.Start();
return outerTask;
}
}