# Cancelable AsyncLazy that is thread-safe

I've been thinking about the AsyncLazy<T> class that Stephen Toub and Stephen Cleary present in various resources such as this. I am trying to find a way to integrate cancellation with AsyncLazy<T>. Microsoft has a version of AsyncLazy<T> in their Visual Studio 2019 SDK that offers a GetValueAsync(CancellationToken) method, but if you read the fine print, it says:

Note that this will not cancel the value factory (since other callers may exist).

I would like something that does cancel the value factory. After failing to get anywhere with my research, I decided to attempt my own which is shown in the code below. However, I'm having trouble with thread safety, as I don't want multiple threads to execute the long-running value factory. I want any thread that comes in behind the first one to essentially await the completion of that first thread, and then the subsequent thread would have the trivial task of just returning the already-created value.

Here is the code:

public sealed class CancelableAsyncLazy<T>
{
private T _createdValue;
private bool _isValueCreated = false;
private volatile bool _shouldWait = false;

=> _valueFactory = valueFactory;

{
{
});

_shouldWait = true;

try
{
if (_isValueCreated) return _createdValue;
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
_createdValue = await _valueFactory(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
_isValueCreated = true;
return _createdValue;
}
finally
{
_shouldWait = false;
}
}
}


I don't like the fact that I'm using Task.Run and Thread.Sleep to wait for the value to be created by an earlier thread, but I can't think of a better way to do it. The key is that it shouldn't block. I tried using a Mutex, but it's possible the same thread could call the method before the value is created, so the subsequent call (from the same thread) would just blow past the Mutex.

• Borderline on-/off-topic question for SE Code Review IMO. Basically you're asking to rewrite your code without these Thread features you're currently using (which means asking for code not yet implemented). – πάντα ῥεῖ Jul 15 '19 at 17:27
• I'm not asking to re-write the code. I'm asking for people to help me determine if the approach is ok or if there's something else I should look at. – rory.ap Jul 15 '19 at 17:30
• @πάνταῥεῖ This is an interesting question from a meta point of view. It is clear that the OP wants an improved solution for his scenario. The thread sleep is a hack seen from afar. However, the code does work as intended. For me this is review-worthy. – dfhwze Jul 16 '19 at 20:37
• @dfhwze Well, as I mentioned it's a bit borderline (not straightforward off-topic). Have an upvote for your review. – πάντα ῥεῖ Jul 16 '19 at 20:40
• @πάνταῥεῖ I guess I don't understand the essence of this site then. I thought it was basically "I have working code but I'm not happy with some aspect of it or want to know if there's a better way". I don't see how my question is borderline "off topic". I'm not trying to be nitpicky with your comment; I simply want to know for my own edification and for future use of this site. – rory.ap Jul 17 '19 at 14:33

### Specification Considerations

Note that the first caller that gets access is the one that provides the cancellationToken for the valueFactory. Other callers use their own cancellationToken for timing out on awaiting the result of the async operation. This is how you designed your class. I did not change this part of the behavior.

If this behavior is not wanted, consider storing a cancellation token through the constructor. This one is used solely for the factory. And each call to GetValueAsync could then use its own cancellation token to time out, without influencing possible cancellation of the factory. This is a design decision you would have to make.

## Review

This is not a good solution. You know it, we all know it :-)

await Task.Run(() =>
{
});


The way to delay a thread the async way is to use Task.Delay (Overview TAP Guidelines). This is already better. But as you mentioned, this still feels like a hack (and it is). Using some sort of Mutex would be a better approach, as you rightfully indicated. We'll get to that.

You define 2 similar variables _isValueCreated and _shouldWait. If you think about it, they have the same purpose. As long the value is not created, a caller should wait. Let's merge them into a variable named .. let's say _memoized. This is common terminology in caching.

private bool _isValueCreated = false;
private volatile bool _shouldWait = false;


Rather than the whole construct of abusing a thread's Sleep and using a volatile bool to simulate a lock, we could use a Semaphore (Async Mutex using a Semaphore).

As discussed in the previous link, this is not possible..

// example code
lock (lockObject)
{
}


.. but this is..

// example code
await semaphoreSlim.WaitAsync();
try
{
}
finally
{
semaphoreSlim.Release();
}


Let's see how we can implement this in your cancellable async lazy class.

## Refactoring the Code

We define our variables. Your two booleans are merged into one. And we use the semaphore described above.

private readonly Func<CancellationToken, Task<T>> _valueFactory;
private volatile bool _memoized;
private T _value;


The constructor is straight-forward. Make sure to use a Semaphore than emulates a Mutex so one thread has access to the resource simultaneously.

public CancelableAsyncLazy(Func<CancellationToken, Task<T>> valueFactory)
{
_valueFactory = valueFactory ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(valueFactory));
_mutex = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
}


The infamous GetValueAsync can then be rewritten completely. Each caller thread can provide its own cancellationToken. Use it to acquire a lock on _mutex. Once we have the lock, check whether _value is already memoized. If not (!_memoized) execute _valueFactory, and memoize the value. Now, we perform another timeout check for the calling thread ThrowIfCancellationRequested. Even though we have the value available now, the caller might still have timed out, so let him now. Don't forget to release the mutex.

public async Task<T> GetValueAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
await _mutex.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
try
{
if (!_memoized)
{
_value = await _valueFactory(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
_memoized = true;
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
return _value;
}
finally
{
_mutex.Release();
}
}


We should allow for a convenience overload if no cancellation support is required for a given caller.

public async Task<T> GetValueAsync() => await GetValueAsync(CancellationToken.None);


And since we comply to the concept of Lazy we should also provide a synchronous property Value.

public T Value => GetValueAsync().Result;


### Refactored Code

public sealed class CancelableAsyncLazy<T>
{
private volatile bool _memoized;
private T _value;

{
_valueFactory = valueFactory
?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(valueFactory));
_mutex = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
}

public T Value => GetValueAsync().Result;

public async Task<T> GetValueAsync() => await GetValueAsync(CancellationToken.None);

{
await _mutex.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
try
{
if (!_memoized)
{
_value = await _valueFactory(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
_memoized = true;
// at this point, the value is available, however, the caller
// might have indicated to cancel the operation; I favor
// checking for cancellation one last time here, but you
// might decide against it and return the result anyway
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
return _value;
}
finally
{
_mutex.Release();
}
}
}

• What's the cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); for in the refactored code? The point of cancellation is to avoid doing expensive operations, but at that point there's nothing left to do. – Peter Taylor Jul 17 '19 at 7:17
• @PeterTaylor Because the caller might have indicated he no longer wants to await the result of the operation. This is an edge case for a race condition. One could design it to favor returning the result anyway. I have decided against it. – dfhwze Jul 17 '19 at 7:30
• Thank you for your very thorough answer; I appreciate it. One thing I can't seem to wrap my mind around is this: with the WaitAsync method "there is no thread", correct? So how can a locking mechanism grab the mutex if it doesn't have a thread to associate it with and prevent other threads from grabbing the mutex until it's released? In fact (based on my testing) the first call never does any async at all because if I use .ConfigureAwait(false) it continues on the main thread, not a thread pool thread. – rory.ap Jul 17 '19 at 14:21
• @rory.ap A semaphore allows for thread-safe access to a resource. It does not have an affinity to a thread. In other words, thread A may acquire the semaphore, all other threads will block untill any thread A or B releases the semaphore. As you can see, it differs from a lock where thread affinity is required. – dfhwze Jul 18 '19 at 5:46