Related
In a thread, I create some System.Threading.Task and start each task.
When I do a .Abort() to kill the thread, the tasks are not aborted.
How can I transmit the .Abort() to my tasks ?
You can't. Tasks use background threads from the thread pool. Also canceling threads using the Abort method is not recommended. You may take a look at the following blog post which explains a proper way of canceling tasks using cancellation tokens. Here's an example:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var ts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = ts.Token;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
// do some heavy work here
Thread.Sleep(100);
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// another thread decided to cancel
Console.WriteLine("task canceled");
break;
}
}
}, ct);
// Simulate waiting 3s for the task to complete
Thread.Sleep(3000);
// Can't wait anymore => cancel this task
ts.Cancel();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Like this post suggests, this can be done in the following way:
int Foo(CancellationToken token)
{
Thread t = Thread.CurrentThread;
using (token.Register(t.Abort))
{
// compute-bound work here
}
}
Although it works, it's not recommended to use such approach. If you can control the code that executes in task, you'd better go with proper handling of cancellation.
Aborting a Task is easily possible if you capture the thread in which the task is running in. Here is an example code to demonstrate this:
void Main()
{
Thread thread = null;
Task t = Task.Run(() =>
{
//Capture the thread
thread = Thread.CurrentThread;
//Simulate work (usually from 3rd party code)
Thread.Sleep(1000);
//If you comment out thread.Abort(), then this will be displayed
Console.WriteLine("Task finished!");
});
//This is needed in the example to avoid thread being still NULL
Thread.Sleep(10);
//Cancel the task by aborting the thread
thread.Abort();
}
I used Task.Run() to show the most common use-case for this - using the comfort of Tasks with old single-threaded code, which does not use the CancellationTokenSource class to determine if it should be canceled or not.
This sort of thing is one of the logistical reasons why Abort is deprecated. First and foremost, do not use Thread.Abort() to cancel or stop a thread if at all possible. Abort() should only be used to forcefully kill a thread that is not responding to more peaceful requests to stop in a timely fashion.
That being said, you need to provide a shared cancellation indicator that one thread sets and waits while the other thread periodically checks and gracefully exits. .NET 4 includes a structure designed specifically for this purpose, the CancellationToken.
I use a mixed approach to cancel a task.
Firstly, I'm trying to Cancel it politely with using the Cancellation.
If it's still running (e.g. due to a developer's mistake), then misbehave and kill it using an old-school Abort method.
Checkout an example below:
private CancellationTokenSource taskToken;
private AutoResetEvent awaitReplyOnRequestEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void Main()
{
// Start a task which is doing nothing but sleeps 1s
LaunchTaskAsync();
Thread.Sleep(100);
// Stop the task
StopTask();
}
/// <summary>
/// Launch task in a new thread
/// </summary>
void LaunchTaskAsync()
{
taskToken = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{ //Capture the thread
runningTaskThread = Thread.CurrentThread;
// Run the task
if (taskToken.IsCancellationRequested || !awaitReplyOnRequestEvent.WaitOne(10000))
return;
Console.WriteLine("Task finished!");
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
// Handle exception
}
}, taskToken.Token);
}
/// <summary>
/// Stop running task
/// </summary>
void StopTask()
{
// Attempt to cancel the task politely
if (taskToken != null)
{
if (taskToken.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
else
taskToken.Cancel();
}
// Notify a waiting thread that an event has occurred
if (awaitReplyOnRequestEvent != null)
awaitReplyOnRequestEvent.Set();
// If 1 sec later the task is still running, kill it cruelly
if (runningTaskThread != null)
{
try
{
runningTaskThread.Join(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
runningTaskThread.Abort();
}
}
}
To answer Prerak K's question about how to use CancellationTokens when not using an anonymous method in Task.Factory.StartNew(), you pass the CancellationToken as a parameter into the method you're starting with StartNew(), as shown in the MSDN example here.
e.g.
var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = tokenSource.Token;
Task.Factory.StartNew( () => DoSomeWork(1, token), token);
static void DoSomeWork(int taskNum, CancellationToken ct)
{
// Do work here, checking and acting on ct.IsCancellationRequested where applicable,
}
You should not try to do this directly. Design your tasks to work with a CancellationToken, and cancel them this way.
In addition, I would recommend changing your main thread to function via a CancellationToken as well. Calling Thread.Abort() is a bad idea - it can lead to various problems that are very difficult to diagnose. Instead, that thread can use the same Cancellation that your tasks use - and the same CancellationTokenSource can be used to trigger the cancellation of all of your tasks and your main thread.
This will lead to a far simpler, and safer, design.
Tasks have first class support for cancellation via cancellation tokens. Create your tasks with cancellation tokens, and cancel the tasks via these explicitly.
You can use a CancellationToken to control whether the task gets cancelled. Are you talking about aborting it before it's started ("nevermind, I already did this"), or actually interrupting it in middle? If the former, the CancellationToken can be helpful; if the latter, you will probably need to implement your own "bail out" mechanism and check at appropriate points in the task execution whether you should fail fast (you can still use the CancellationToken to help you, but it's a little more manual).
MSDN has an article about cancelling Tasks:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997396.aspx
Task are being executed on the ThreadPool (at least, if you are using the default factory), so aborting the thread cannot affect the tasks. For aborting tasks, see Task Cancellation on msdn.
I tried CancellationTokenSource but i can't do this. And i did do this with my own way. And it works.
namespace Blokick.Provider
{
public class SignalRConnectProvider
{
public SignalRConnectProvider()
{
}
public bool IsStopRequested { get; set; } = false; //1-)This is important and default `false`.
public async Task<string> ConnectTab()
{
string messageText = "";
for (int count = 1; count < 20; count++)
{
if (count == 1)
{
//Do stuff.
}
try
{
//Do stuff.
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Do stuff.
}
if (IsStopRequested) //3-)This is important. The control of the task stopping request. Must be true and in inside.
{
return messageText = "Task stopped."; //4-) And so return and exit the code and task.
}
if (Connected)
{
//Do stuff.
}
if (count == 19)
{
//Do stuff.
}
}
return messageText;
}
}
}
And another class of the calling the method:
namespace Blokick.Views
{
[XamlCompilation(XamlCompilationOptions.Compile)]
public partial class MessagePerson : ContentPage
{
SignalRConnectProvider signalR = new SignalRConnectProvider();
public MessagePerson()
{
InitializeComponent();
signalR.IsStopRequested = true; // 2-) And this. Make true if running the task and go inside if statement of the IsStopRequested property.
if (signalR.ChatHubProxy != null)
{
signalR.Disconnect();
}
LoadSignalRMessage();
}
}
}
You can abort a task like a thread if you can cause the task to be created on its own thread and call Abort on its Thread object. By default, a task runs on a thread pool thread or the calling thread - neither of which you typically want to abort.
To ensure the task gets its own thread, create a custom scheduler derived from TaskScheduler. In your implementation of QueueTask, create a new thread and use it to execute the task. Later, you can abort the thread, which will cause the task to complete in a faulted state with a ThreadAbortException.
Use this task scheduler:
class SingleThreadTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
public Thread TaskThread { get; private set; }
protected override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
TaskThread = new Thread(() => TryExecuteTask(task));
TaskThread.Start();
}
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() => throw new NotSupportedException(); // Unused
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) => throw new NotSupportedException(); // Unused
}
Start your task like this:
var scheduler = new SingleThreadTaskScheduler();
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(action, cancellationToken, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, scheduler);
Later, you can abort with:
scheduler.TaskThread.Abort();
Note that the caveat about aborting a thread still applies:
The Thread.Abort method should be used with caution. Particularly when you call it to abort a thread other than the current thread, you do not know what code has executed or failed to execute when the ThreadAbortException is thrown, nor can you be certain of the state of your application or any application and user state that it is responsible for preserving. For example, calling Thread.Abort may prevent static constructors from executing or prevent the release of unmanaged resources.
You can use this class..:
It works for all typs of returned Values..
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace CarNUChargeTester
{
public class TimeOutTaskRunner<T>
{
private Func<T> func;
private int sec;
private T result;
public TimeOutTaskRunner(Func<T> func, int sec)
{
this.func = func;
this.sec = sec;
}
public bool run()
{
var scheduler = new SingleThreadTaskScheduler();
Task<T> task = Task<T>.Factory.StartNew(func, (new CancellationTokenSource()).Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, scheduler);
if (!task.Wait(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(sec)))
{
scheduler.TaskThread.Abort();
return false;
}
result = task.Result;
return true;
}
public T getResult() { return result; }
}
class SingleThreadTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
public Thread TaskThread { get; private set; }
protected override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
TaskThread = new Thread(() => TryExecuteTask(task));
TaskThread.Start();
}
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() => throw new NotSupportedException();
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) => throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
To use it you can write:
TimeOutTaskRunner<string> tr = new TimeOutTaskRunner<string>(f, 10); // 10 sec to run f
if (!tr.run())
errorMsg("TimeOut"); !! My func
tr.getResult() // get the results if it done without timeout..
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.
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.
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!
In a thread, I create some System.Threading.Task and start each task.
When I do a .Abort() to kill the thread, the tasks are not aborted.
How can I transmit the .Abort() to my tasks ?
You can't. Tasks use background threads from the thread pool. Also canceling threads using the Abort method is not recommended. You may take a look at the following blog post which explains a proper way of canceling tasks using cancellation tokens. Here's an example:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var ts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = ts.Token;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
// do some heavy work here
Thread.Sleep(100);
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// another thread decided to cancel
Console.WriteLine("task canceled");
break;
}
}
}, ct);
// Simulate waiting 3s for the task to complete
Thread.Sleep(3000);
// Can't wait anymore => cancel this task
ts.Cancel();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Like this post suggests, this can be done in the following way:
int Foo(CancellationToken token)
{
Thread t = Thread.CurrentThread;
using (token.Register(t.Abort))
{
// compute-bound work here
}
}
Although it works, it's not recommended to use such approach. If you can control the code that executes in task, you'd better go with proper handling of cancellation.
Aborting a Task is easily possible if you capture the thread in which the task is running in. Here is an example code to demonstrate this:
void Main()
{
Thread thread = null;
Task t = Task.Run(() =>
{
//Capture the thread
thread = Thread.CurrentThread;
//Simulate work (usually from 3rd party code)
Thread.Sleep(1000);
//If you comment out thread.Abort(), then this will be displayed
Console.WriteLine("Task finished!");
});
//This is needed in the example to avoid thread being still NULL
Thread.Sleep(10);
//Cancel the task by aborting the thread
thread.Abort();
}
I used Task.Run() to show the most common use-case for this - using the comfort of Tasks with old single-threaded code, which does not use the CancellationTokenSource class to determine if it should be canceled or not.
This sort of thing is one of the logistical reasons why Abort is deprecated. First and foremost, do not use Thread.Abort() to cancel or stop a thread if at all possible. Abort() should only be used to forcefully kill a thread that is not responding to more peaceful requests to stop in a timely fashion.
That being said, you need to provide a shared cancellation indicator that one thread sets and waits while the other thread periodically checks and gracefully exits. .NET 4 includes a structure designed specifically for this purpose, the CancellationToken.
I use a mixed approach to cancel a task.
Firstly, I'm trying to Cancel it politely with using the Cancellation.
If it's still running (e.g. due to a developer's mistake), then misbehave and kill it using an old-school Abort method.
Checkout an example below:
private CancellationTokenSource taskToken;
private AutoResetEvent awaitReplyOnRequestEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void Main()
{
// Start a task which is doing nothing but sleeps 1s
LaunchTaskAsync();
Thread.Sleep(100);
// Stop the task
StopTask();
}
/// <summary>
/// Launch task in a new thread
/// </summary>
void LaunchTaskAsync()
{
taskToken = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{ //Capture the thread
runningTaskThread = Thread.CurrentThread;
// Run the task
if (taskToken.IsCancellationRequested || !awaitReplyOnRequestEvent.WaitOne(10000))
return;
Console.WriteLine("Task finished!");
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
// Handle exception
}
}, taskToken.Token);
}
/// <summary>
/// Stop running task
/// </summary>
void StopTask()
{
// Attempt to cancel the task politely
if (taskToken != null)
{
if (taskToken.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
else
taskToken.Cancel();
}
// Notify a waiting thread that an event has occurred
if (awaitReplyOnRequestEvent != null)
awaitReplyOnRequestEvent.Set();
// If 1 sec later the task is still running, kill it cruelly
if (runningTaskThread != null)
{
try
{
runningTaskThread.Join(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
runningTaskThread.Abort();
}
}
}
To answer Prerak K's question about how to use CancellationTokens when not using an anonymous method in Task.Factory.StartNew(), you pass the CancellationToken as a parameter into the method you're starting with StartNew(), as shown in the MSDN example here.
e.g.
var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = tokenSource.Token;
Task.Factory.StartNew( () => DoSomeWork(1, token), token);
static void DoSomeWork(int taskNum, CancellationToken ct)
{
// Do work here, checking and acting on ct.IsCancellationRequested where applicable,
}
You should not try to do this directly. Design your tasks to work with a CancellationToken, and cancel them this way.
In addition, I would recommend changing your main thread to function via a CancellationToken as well. Calling Thread.Abort() is a bad idea - it can lead to various problems that are very difficult to diagnose. Instead, that thread can use the same Cancellation that your tasks use - and the same CancellationTokenSource can be used to trigger the cancellation of all of your tasks and your main thread.
This will lead to a far simpler, and safer, design.
Tasks have first class support for cancellation via cancellation tokens. Create your tasks with cancellation tokens, and cancel the tasks via these explicitly.
You can use a CancellationToken to control whether the task gets cancelled. Are you talking about aborting it before it's started ("nevermind, I already did this"), or actually interrupting it in middle? If the former, the CancellationToken can be helpful; if the latter, you will probably need to implement your own "bail out" mechanism and check at appropriate points in the task execution whether you should fail fast (you can still use the CancellationToken to help you, but it's a little more manual).
MSDN has an article about cancelling Tasks:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997396.aspx
Task are being executed on the ThreadPool (at least, if you are using the default factory), so aborting the thread cannot affect the tasks. For aborting tasks, see Task Cancellation on msdn.
I tried CancellationTokenSource but i can't do this. And i did do this with my own way. And it works.
namespace Blokick.Provider
{
public class SignalRConnectProvider
{
public SignalRConnectProvider()
{
}
public bool IsStopRequested { get; set; } = false; //1-)This is important and default `false`.
public async Task<string> ConnectTab()
{
string messageText = "";
for (int count = 1; count < 20; count++)
{
if (count == 1)
{
//Do stuff.
}
try
{
//Do stuff.
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Do stuff.
}
if (IsStopRequested) //3-)This is important. The control of the task stopping request. Must be true and in inside.
{
return messageText = "Task stopped."; //4-) And so return and exit the code and task.
}
if (Connected)
{
//Do stuff.
}
if (count == 19)
{
//Do stuff.
}
}
return messageText;
}
}
}
And another class of the calling the method:
namespace Blokick.Views
{
[XamlCompilation(XamlCompilationOptions.Compile)]
public partial class MessagePerson : ContentPage
{
SignalRConnectProvider signalR = new SignalRConnectProvider();
public MessagePerson()
{
InitializeComponent();
signalR.IsStopRequested = true; // 2-) And this. Make true if running the task and go inside if statement of the IsStopRequested property.
if (signalR.ChatHubProxy != null)
{
signalR.Disconnect();
}
LoadSignalRMessage();
}
}
}
You can abort a task like a thread if you can cause the task to be created on its own thread and call Abort on its Thread object. By default, a task runs on a thread pool thread or the calling thread - neither of which you typically want to abort.
To ensure the task gets its own thread, create a custom scheduler derived from TaskScheduler. In your implementation of QueueTask, create a new thread and use it to execute the task. Later, you can abort the thread, which will cause the task to complete in a faulted state with a ThreadAbortException.
Use this task scheduler:
class SingleThreadTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
public Thread TaskThread { get; private set; }
protected override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
TaskThread = new Thread(() => TryExecuteTask(task));
TaskThread.Start();
}
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() => throw new NotSupportedException(); // Unused
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) => throw new NotSupportedException(); // Unused
}
Start your task like this:
var scheduler = new SingleThreadTaskScheduler();
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(action, cancellationToken, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, scheduler);
Later, you can abort with:
scheduler.TaskThread.Abort();
Note that the caveat about aborting a thread still applies:
The Thread.Abort method should be used with caution. Particularly when you call it to abort a thread other than the current thread, you do not know what code has executed or failed to execute when the ThreadAbortException is thrown, nor can you be certain of the state of your application or any application and user state that it is responsible for preserving. For example, calling Thread.Abort may prevent static constructors from executing or prevent the release of unmanaged resources.
You can use this class..:
It works for all typs of returned Values..
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace CarNUChargeTester
{
public class TimeOutTaskRunner<T>
{
private Func<T> func;
private int sec;
private T result;
public TimeOutTaskRunner(Func<T> func, int sec)
{
this.func = func;
this.sec = sec;
}
public bool run()
{
var scheduler = new SingleThreadTaskScheduler();
Task<T> task = Task<T>.Factory.StartNew(func, (new CancellationTokenSource()).Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, scheduler);
if (!task.Wait(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(sec)))
{
scheduler.TaskThread.Abort();
return false;
}
result = task.Result;
return true;
}
public T getResult() { return result; }
}
class SingleThreadTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
public Thread TaskThread { get; private set; }
protected override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
TaskThread = new Thread(() => TryExecuteTask(task));
TaskThread.Start();
}
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() => throw new NotSupportedException();
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) => throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
To use it you can write:
TimeOutTaskRunner<string> tr = new TimeOutTaskRunner<string>(f, 10); // 10 sec to run f
if (!tr.run())
errorMsg("TimeOut"); !! My func
tr.getResult() // get the results if it done without timeout..