Why does TaskCanceledException occur?

Question

I have the following test code:

void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
    var source = new CancellationTokenSource();

    var tsk1 = new Task(() => Thread1(source.Token), source.Token);
    var tsk2 = new Task(() => Thread2(source.Token), source.Token);

    tsk1.Start();
    tsk2.Start();

    source.Cancel();

    try
    {
        Task.WaitAll(new[] {tsk1, tsk2});
    }
    catch (Exception ex)
    {
        // here exception is caught
    }
}

void Thread1(CancellationToken token)
{
    Thread.Sleep(2000);

    // If the following line is enabled, the result is the same.
    // token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}

void Thread2(CancellationToken token)
{
    Thread.Sleep(3000);
}

In the thread methods I don't throw any exceptions, but I get TaskCanceledException in try-catch block of the outer code which starts the tasks. Why this happens and what is the purpose of token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); in this case. I believe the exception should only be thrown if I call token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); in the thread method.

This does not throw an exception in VS2017 .NET Framework 4.6.2. — Moby Disk, Oct 25 '17 at 21:36

score 41 · Accepted Answer · edited Mar 12 '15 at 13:28

I believe this is expected behavior because you're running in to a variation of a race condition.

From How to: Cancel a task and its children:

The calling thread does not forcibly end the task; it only signals that cancellation is requested. If the task is already running, it is up to the user delegate to notice the request and respond appropriately. If cancellation is requested before the task runs, then the user delegate is never executed and the task object transitions into the Canceled state.

and from Task Cancellation:

You can terminate the operation by [...] simply returning from the delegate. In many scenarios this is sufficient; however, a task instance that is "canceled" in this way transitions to the RanToCompletion state, not to the Canceled state.

My educated guess here is that while you are calling .Start() on your two tasks, chances are that one (or both of them) didn't actually start before you called .Cancel() on your CancellationTokenSource. I bet if you put in at least a three second wait between the start of the tasks and the cancellation, it won't throw the exception. Also, you can check the .Status property of both tasks. If I'm right, the .Status property should read TaskStatus.Canceled on at least one of them when the exception is thrown.

Remember, starting a new Task does not guarantee a new thread being created. It falls to the TPL to decide what gets a new thread and what is simply queued for execution.

Yes, this is correct. Except for "it falls to the TPL to decide what gets a new thread", actually the Start() method in the question immediately queues the task on the ThreadPool, and the thread pool (which is lower in the stack than TPL) decides when to actually execute the work. But ya, if the token is canceled before the work is actually executed, the task will still cancel. — Andrew Arnott, Mar 03 '13 at 17:09
`Task.WaitAll` is somewhat bad, since it blocks a thread while waiting for what could be asynchronous work. If you call `Task.WhenAll` instead, not only will you unblock a thread, but it won't throw on canceled tasks either. The task that method will throw if you then Wait() or `await` on it, however. — Andrew Arnott, Mar 03 '13 at 17:10
So this is by design, it will always throw the exception if a task was canceled before started? — net_prog, Mar 04 '13 at 03:47
@net_prog it will not always throw an error, it will always cancel. The reason it errors is because we await it. await something that is cancelled will throw an error, just like awaiting something that errored will. Both cancel and error can be caught in callbacks with .ContinueWith or other methods. — miThom, Jul 08 '21 at 15:12

Why does TaskCanceledException occur?

1 Answers1

Linked