WriteAsync enqueued its frame and then contended unconditionally for the write
lock, so a caller that lost the race stayed in WaitAsync until the winning
drainer released — even though that winner writes, flushes, and completes the
loser's control frame at the control-to-event class boundary, part-way through
its pass. The boundary flush made the delivery point honest; the awaited task
was still charged for the whole event backlog it had just been flushed ahead of.
WriteAsync now awaits its own frame's completion racing the lock acquisition.
Completion first: the caller returns at its frame's delivery point and the
outstanding acquisition is detached, not dropped — a continuation drains
whatever is queued and releases, so the lock is never acquired and silently
held and a frame enqueued between the previous drainer's last dequeue and its
release is still written. Lock first: drain as before. Cancellation keeps the
WRK-22 tombstone semantics exactly, and a wait cancelled after the caller has
already detached releases nothing (SemaphoreSlim hands no count to a wait it
cancels), so no count leaks and no queued frame is stranded. A token that fires
after the frame's completion won the race changes nothing — the frame was
delivered. WriteBatchAsync deliberately keeps the plain wait-then-drain shape:
its last completion resolves at the end-of-pass flush anyway.
Three tests: the latency win (a control caller returning while the winning
WriteBatchAsync event burst is demonstrably still blocked mid-pass), a
mixed-priority concurrency soak pinning exactly-once writes and a single
drainer, and the cancel-after-detach corner (a wrongly released count would
surface as the drainer's own Release throwing SemaphoreFullException).
edited on macOS, windev verification pending (plan Task 11). Verified here by
compiling and running WorkerFrameWriter plus the writer suite against net10.0
in a scratch harness: 31/31 pass, and the two behaviour-pinning tests fail
against the pre-change parked implementation.
Joseph Doherty
9130994736