We Keep Coding

How can I make a interrupt in C#? [duplicate]

I understand Thread.Abort() is evil from the multitude of articles I've read on the topic, so I'm currently in the process of ripping out all of my abort's in order to replace it for a cleaner way; and after comparing user strategies from people here on stackoverflow and then after reading "How to: Create and Terminate Threads (C# Programming Guide)" from MSDN both which state an approach very much the same -- which is to use a volatile bool approach checking strategy, which is nice, but I still have a few questions....
Immediately what stands out to me here, is what if you do not have a simple worker process which is just running a loop of crunching code? For instance for me, my process is a background file uploader process, I do in fact loop through each file, so that's something, and sure I could add my while (!_shouldStop) at the top which covers me every loop iteration, but I have many more business processes which occur before it hits it's next loop iteration, I want this cancel procedure to be snappy; don't tell me I need to sprinkle these while loops every 4-5 lines down throughout my entire worker function?!
I really hope there is a better way, could somebody please advise me on if this is in fact, the correct [and only?] approach to do this, or strategies they have used in the past to achieve what I am after.
Thanks gang.
Further reading: All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. What if it is a linear, but timely background operation?

Unfortunately there may not be a better option. It really depends on your specific scenario. The idea is to stop the thread gracefully at safe points. That is the crux of the reason why Thread.Abort is not good; because it is not guaranteed to occur at safe points. By sprinkling the code with a stopping mechanism you are effectively manually defining the safe points. This is called cooperative cancellation. There are basically 4 broad mechanisms for doing this. You can choose the one that best fits your situation.
Poll a stopping flag
You have already mentioned this method. This a pretty common one. Make periodic checks of the flag at safe points in your algorithm and bail out when it gets signalled. The standard approach is to mark the variable volatile. If that is not possible or inconvenient then you can use a lock. Remember, you cannot mark a local variable as volatile so if a lambda expression captures it through a closure, for example, then you would have to resort to a different method for creating the memory barrier that is required. There is not a whole lot else that needs to be said for this method.
Use the new cancellation mechanisms in the TPL
This is similar to polling a stopping flag except that it uses the new cancellation data structures in the TPL. It is still based on cooperative cancellation patterns. You need to get a CancellationToken and the periodically check IsCancellationRequested. To request cancellation you would call Cancel on the CancellationTokenSource that originally provided the token. There is a lot you can do with the new cancellation mechanisms. You can read more about here.
Use wait handles
This method can be useful if your worker thread requires waiting on an specific interval or for a signal during its normal operation. You can Set a ManualResetEvent, for example, to let the thread know it is time to stop. You can test the event using the WaitOne function which returns a bool indicating whether the event was signalled. The WaitOne takes a parameter that specifies how much time to wait for the call to return if the event was not signaled in that amount of time. You can use this technique in place of Thread.Sleep and get the stopping indication at the same time. It is also useful if there are other WaitHandle instances that the thread may have to wait on. You can call WaitHandle.WaitAny to wait on any event (including the stop event) all in one call. Using an event can be better than calling Thread.Interrupt since you have more control over of the flow of the program (Thread.Interrupt throws an exception so you would have to strategically place the try-catch blocks to perform any necessary cleanup).
Specialized scenarios
There are several one-off scenarios that have very specialized stopping mechanisms. It is definitely outside the scope of this answer to enumerate them all (never mind that it would be nearly impossible). A good example of what I mean here is the Socket class. If the thread is blocked on a call to Send or Receive then calling Close will interrupt the socket on whatever blocking call it was in effectively unblocking it. I am sure there are several other areas in the BCL where similiar techniques can be used to unblock a thread.
Interrupt the thread via Thread.Interrupt
The advantage here is that it is simple and you do not have to focus on sprinkling your code with anything really. The disadvantage is that you have little control over where the safe points are in your algorithm. The reason is because Thread.Interrupt works by injecting an exception inside one of the canned BCL blocking calls. These include Thread.Sleep, WaitHandle.WaitOne, Thread.Join, etc. So you have to be wise about where you place them. However, most the time the algorithm dictates where they go and that is usually fine anyway especially if your algorithm spends most of its time in one of these blocking calls. If you algorithm does not use one of the blocking calls in the BCL then this method will not work for you. The theory here is that the ThreadInterruptException is only generated from .NET waiting call so it is likely at a safe point. At the very least you know that the thread cannot be in unmanaged code or bail out of a critical section leaving a dangling lock in an acquired state. Despite this being less invasive than Thread.Abort I still discourage its use because it is not obvious which calls respond to it and many developers will be unfamiliar with its nuances.

Well, unfortunately in multithreading you often have to compromise "snappiness" for cleanliness... you can exit a thread immediately if you Interrupt it, but it won't be very clean. So no, you don't have to sprinkle the _shouldStop checks every 4-5 lines, but if you do interrupt your thread then you should handle the exception and exit out of the loop in a clean manner.
Update
Even if it's not a looping thread (i.e. perhaps it's a thread that performs some long-running asynchronous operation or some type of block for input operation), you can Interrupt it, but you should still catch the ThreadInterruptedException and exit the thread cleanly. I think that the examples you've been reading are very appropriate.
Update 2.0
Yes I have an example... I'll just show you an example based on the link you referenced:
public class InterruptExample
{
private Thread t;
private volatile boolean alive;
public InterruptExample()
{
alive = false;
t = new Thread(()=>
{
try
{
while (alive)
{
/* Do work. */
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException exception)
{
/* Clean up. */
}
});
t.IsBackground = true;
}
public void Start()
{
alive = true;
t.Start();
}
public void Kill(int timeout = 0)
{
// somebody tells you to stop the thread
t.Interrupt();
// Optionally you can block the caller
// by making them wait until the thread exits.
// If they leave the default timeout,
// then they will not wait at all
t.Join(timeout);
}
}

If cancellation is a requirement of the thing you're building, then it should be treated with as much respect as the rest of your code--it may be something you have to design for.
Lets assume that your thread is doing one of two things at all times.
Something CPU bound
Waiting for the kernel
If you're CPU bound in the thread in question, you probably have a good spot to insert the bail-out check. If you're calling into someone else's code to do some long-running CPU-bound task, then you might need to fix the external code, move it out of process (aborting threads is evil, but aborting processes is well-defined and safe), etc.
If you're waiting for the kernel, then there's probably a handle (or fd, or mach port, ...) involved in the wait. Usually if you destroy the relevant handle, the kernel will return with some failure code immediately. If you're in .net/java/etc. you'll likely end up with an exception. In C, whatever code you already have in place to handle system call failures will propagate the error up to a meaningful part of your app. Either way, you break out of the low-level place fairly cleanly and in a very timely manner without needing new code sprinkled everywhere.
A tactic I often use with this kind of code is to keep track of a list of handles that need to be closed and then have my abort function set a "cancelled" flag and then close them. When the function fails it can check the flag and report failure due to cancellation rather than due to whatever the specific exception/errno was.
You seem to be implying that an acceptable granularity for cancellation is at the level of a service call. This is probably not good thinking--you are much better off cancelling the background work synchronously and joining the old background thread from the foreground thread. It's way cleaner becasue:
It avoids a class of race conditions when old bgwork threads come back to life after unexpected delays.
It avoids potential hidden thread/memory leaks caused by hanging background processes by making it possible for the effects of a hanging background thread to hide.
There are two reasons to be scared of this approach:
You don't think you can abort your own code in a timely fashion. If cancellation is a requirement of your app, the decision you really need to make is a resource/business decision: do a hack, or fix your problem cleanly.
You don't trust some code you're calling because it's out of your control. If you really don't trust it, consider moving it out-of-process. You get much better isolation from many kinds of risks, including this one, that way.

The best answer largely depends on what you're doing in the thread.
Like you said, most answers revolve around polling a shared boolean every couple lines. Even though you may not like it, this is often the simplest scheme. If you want to make your life easier, you can write a method like ThrowIfCancelled(), which throws some kind of exception if you're done. The purists will say this is (gasp) using exceptions for control flow, but then again cacelling is exceptional imo.
If you're doing IO operations (like network stuff), you may want to consider doing everything using async operations.
If you're doing a sequence of steps, you could use the IEnumerable trick to make a state machine. Example:
<
abstract class StateMachine : IDisposable
{
public abstract IEnumerable<object> Main();
public virtual void Dispose()
{
/// ... override with free-ing code ...
}
bool wasCancelled;
public bool Cancel()
{
// ... set wasCancelled using locking scheme of choice ...
}
public Thread Run()
{
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
foreach(var x in Main())
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
}
}
finally { Dispose(); }
});
thread.Start()
}
}
class MyStateMachine : StateMachine
{
public override IEnumerabl<object> Main()
{
DoSomething();
yield return null;
DoSomethingElse();
yield return null;
}
}
// then call new MyStateMachine().Run() to run.
>
Overengineering? It depends how many state machines you use. If you just have 1, yes. If you have 100, then maybe not. Too tricky? Well, it depends. Another bonus of this approach is that it lets you (with minor modifications) move your operation into a Timer.tick callback and void threading altogether if it makes sense.
and do everything that blucz says too.

Perhaps the a piece of the problem is that you have such a long method / while loop. Whether or not you are having threading issues, you should break it down into smaller processing steps. Let's suppose those steps are Alpha(), Bravo(), Charlie() and Delta().
You could then do something like this:
public void MyBigBackgroundTask()
{
Action[] tasks = new Action[] { Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta };
int workStepSize = 0;
while (!_shouldStop)
{
tasks[workStepSize++]();
workStepSize %= tasks.Length;
};
}
So yes it loops endlessly, but checks if it is time to stop between each business step.

You don't have to sprinkle while loops everywhere. The outer while loop just checks if it's been told to stop and if so doesn't make another iteration...
If you have a straight "go do something and close out" thread (no loops in it) then you just check the _shouldStop boolean either before or after each major spot inside the thread. That way you know whether it should continue on or bail out.
for example:
public void DoWork() {
RunSomeBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
RunSomeOtherBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
//....
}

Instead of adding a while loop where a loop doesn't otherwise belong, add something like if (_shouldStop) CleanupAndExit(); wherever it makes sense to do so. There's no need to check after every single operation or sprinkle the code all over with them. Instead, think of each check as a chance to exit the thread at that point and add them strategically with this in mind.

All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me
There are not a lot of ways to make code take a long time. Looping is a pretty essential programming construct. Making code take a long time without looping takes a huge amount of statements. Hundreds of thousands.
Or calling some other code that is doing the looping for you. Yes, hard to make that code stop on demand. That just doesn't work.

Handling Parallel Jobs/Threads

I'm trying to refactoring my project and now I'm trying to research for best ways to increase the application's performance.
Question 1. SpinLock vs Interlocked
To creating a counter, which way has better performance.
Interlocked.increament(ref counter)
Or
SpinLock _spinlock = new SpinLock()
bool lockTaken = false;
try
{
_spinlock.Enter(ref lockTaken);
counter = counter + 1;
}
finally
{
if (lockTaken) _spinlock.Exit(false);
}
And if we need to increment another counter, like counter2, should we declare another SpinLock object? or its enough to use another boolean object?
Question 2. Handling nested tasks or better replacement
In this current version of my application, I used tasks, adding each new task to an array and then used Task.WaitAll()
After a lot of research I just figured out that using Parallel.ForEach has better performance, But how can I control the number of current threads? I know I can specify a MaxDegreeOfParallelism in a ParallelOptions parameter, but the problem is here, every time crawl(url) method runs, It just create another limited number of threads, I mean if I set MaxDegree to 10, every time crawl(url) runs, another +10 will created, am I right?, so how can I prevent this? should I use semaphore and threads instead of Parallel? Or there is a better way?
public void Start() {
Parallel.Invoke(() => { crawl(url) } );
}
crawl(string url) {
var response = getresponse(url);
Parallel.foreach(response.links, ParallelOption, link => {
crawl(link);
});
}
Question 3. Notify when all Jobs (and nested jobs) finished.
And my last question is how can I understand when all my jobs has finished?

There a is a lot of misconceptions here, I'll point out just a few.
To creating a counter, which way has better performance.
They both do, depending on your exact situation
After a lot of research I just figured out that using Parallel.ForEach
has better performance
This is also very suspect, and actually just wrong. Once again it depends on what you want to do.
I know I can specify a MaxDegreeOfParallelism in a ParallelOptions
parameter, but the problem is here, every time crawl(url) method runs, It just create another limited number of threads
Once again this is wrong, this is your own implementation detail, and depends on how you do it. also TPL MaxDegreeOfParallelism is only a suggestion, it will only do what it thinks heuristically is best for you.
should I use semaphore and threads instead of Parallel? Or there is a
better way?
The answer is a resounding yes.
OK, let's have a look at what you are doing. You say you are making a crawler. A crawler, accesses the internet, each time you access the internet or a network resource or the file system you are (said simplistically) waiting around for an IO completion port callbacks. This is what's knows as an IO workload.
With IO Bound tasks we don't want to tie up the thread pool with threads waiting for IO completion ports. It's inefficient, you are using up valuable resources waiting for callback on threads that are effectively paused.
So for IO bound work, we don't want to spin up new tasks, and we don't want to use Parallel ForEach to wait around using up threads waiting for events to happen. The most appropriate modern pattern for IO bound tasks is the async and await pattern.
For CPU bound work (if you want to use as much CPU as you can) smash the thread pool, use TPL Parallel or as many tasks that is effective.
The async and await pattern works well with completion ports, because instead of waiting around idly for a callback it will give the threads back and allow them to be reused.
...
However what I suggest is using another approach, where you can take advantage of async and await and also control degrees of parallelisation. This enables you to be good to your thread pool, not using up resources waiting for callbacks, and allowing IO to be IO. I give you TPL DataFlow ActionBlock and TransformManyBlocks
This subject is a little above a simple working example, but I can assure you its an appropriate path for what you are doing. What I suggest is you have a look at the following links.
Stephen Cleary There Is No Thread
Stephen Cleary Introduction to Dataflow
Msdn Blogs Parallel Programming with .NET
Stephen Toub Going Deep Stephen Toub: Inside TPL Dataflow, In this he even talks about crawler examples.
Some random blog on dataflow and crawlers Tpl Dataflow walkthrough – Part 5
In Summary, there are many ways to do what you want to do, and there are many technologies. But the main thing is you have some very skewed ideas about parallel programming. You need to hit the books, hit the blogs, and start getting some really solid design principles from the ground up, and stop trying to figure this all out for your self by nit picking small bits of information.

I'd suggest looking at Microsoft's Reactive Framework for this. You can write your Crawl function like this:
public IObservable<Response> Crawl(string url)
{
return
from r in Observable.Start(() => GetResponse(url))
from l in r.Links.ToObservable()
from r2 in Crawl(l).StartWith(r)
select r2;
}
Then to call it try this:
IObservable<Response> crawls = Crawl("www.microsoft.com");
IDisposable subscription =
crawls
.Subscribe(
r => { /* process each response as it arrives */ },
() => { /* All crawls complete */ });
Done. It handles all the threading for you. Just NuGet "System.Reactive".

How to efficiently make 1000s of web requests as quickly as possible

I need to make 100,000s of lightweight (i.e. small Content-Length) web requests from a C# console app. What is the fastest way I can do this (i.e. have completed all the requests in the shortest possible time) and what best practices should I follow? I can't fire and forget because I need to capture the responses.
Presumably I'd want to use the async web requests methods, however I'm wondering what the impact of the overhead of storing all the Task continuations and marshalling would be.
Memory consumption is not an overall concern, the objective is speed.
Presumably I'd also want to make use of all the cores available.
So I can do something like this:
Parallel.ForEach(iterations, i =>
{
var response = await MakeRequest(i);
// do thing with response
});
but that won't make me any faster than just my number of cores.
I can do:
Parallel.ForEach(iterations, i =>
{
var response = MakeRequest(i);
response.GetAwaiter().OnCompleted(() =>
{
// do thing with response
});
});
but how do I keep my program running after the ForEach. Holding on to all the Tasks and WhenAlling them feels bloated, are there any existing patterns or helpers to have some kind of Task queue?
Is there any way to get any better, and how should I handle throttling/error detection? For instance, if the remote endpoint is slow to respond I don't want to continue spamming it.
I understand I also need to do:
ServicePointManager.DefaultConnectionLimit = int.MaxValue
Anything else necessary?

The Parallel class does not work with async loop bodies so you can't use it. Your loop body completes almost immediately and returns a task. There is no parallelism benefit here.
This is a very easy problem. Use one of the standard solutions for processing a series of items asynchronously with a given DOP (this one is good: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2012/03/05/10278165.aspx. Use the last piece of code).
You need to empirically determine the right DOP. Simply try different values. There is no theoretical way to derive the best value because it is dependent on many things.
The connection limit is the only limit that's in your way.
response.GetAwaiter().OnCompleted
Not sure what you tried to accomplish there... If you comment I'll explain the misunderstanding.

The operation you want to perform is
Call an I/O method
Process the result
You are correct that you should use an async version of the I/O method. What's more, you only need 1 thread to start all of the I/O operations. You will not benefit from parallelism here.
You will benefit from parallelism in the second part - processing the result, as this will be a CPU-bound operation. Luckily, async/await will do all the job for you. Console applications don't have a synchronization context. It means that the part of the method after an await will run on a thread pool thread, optimally utilizing all CPU cores.
private async Task MakeRequestAndProcessResult(int i)
{
var result = await MakeRequestAsync();
ProcessResult(result);
}
var tasks = iterations.Select(i => MakeRequestAndProcessResult(i)).ToArray();
To achieve the same behavior in an environment with a synchronization context (for example WPF or WinForms), use ConfigureAwait(false).
var result = await MakeRequestAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
To wait for the tasks to complete, you can use await Task.WhenAll(tasks) inside an async method or Task.WaitAll(tasks) in Main().
Throwing 100k requests at a web service will probably kill it, so you will have to limit it. You can check answers to this question to find some options how to do it.

Parallel.ForEach should be able to use more threads than there are cores if you explicitly set the MaxDegreeOfParallelism property of the ParallelOptions parameter (in the overload of ForEach where there is that parameter) - see https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.tasks.paralleloptions.maxdegreeofparallelism(v=vs.110).aspx
You should be able to set this on 1,000 to get it to use 1,000 threads or even more, but that might not be efficient due to the threading overheads. You may wish to experiment (eg. loop from eg. 100 to 1,000 stepping in 100s to try submitting 1,000 requests each time and time start to finish) or even set up some kind of self-tuning algorithm.

What is the behaviour of await inside of a Parallel.ForEach() loop?

I have a computationally intensive program which I am attempting to parallelize, however one of the limiting steps is an I/O operation which is controlled by a phenomenally inefficient API I have no control over but have no choice but to use. It is imperative that my parallelization does not increase the number of I/O operations, or any benefit will likely very quickly disappear.
The layout is something like this: I have two classes, Foo and Bar, and in order to calculate Foo, which involves no small quantity of calculations, I must pass it an instance, or a few instances, of Bar which I import from some other file in an extremely expensive I/O operation. I require a large number of both Foo and Bar instances and many of these Bar instances will be used to calculate more than one Foo instance. As a result, I do not want to discard my Bar instances after I calculate each Foo and I do not want to import them more than once each. Potentially of note, to make matters more complicated the API is 32-bit, whereas my program must be 64-bit to avoid MemoryException, so that is handled by a locally hosted server which I communicate with using WCF.
Here is my proposed solution, but I am extremely new to parallelization and in particular I am unsure of how the await will be handled inside of the ForEach loop w.r.t freeing up processors:
ConcurrentDictionary<string, Task<Bar>> barList = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, Task<Bar>>();
Parallel.ForEach(fooList, foo =>
{
if (!barList.ContainsKey(this.RequiredBarName))
{
Task<Bar> importBar = Task.Run(() => Import.BarByName(this.RequiredBarName));
barList.Add(this.RequiredBarName,importBar);
}
this.RequiredBarTask = barList.TryGetValue(this.RequiredBarName);
foo.CalculateStuff();
}
// where foo.CalculateStuff() looks something like this
async public void CalculateStuff()
{
// do some stuff...
Bar requiredBar = await this.RequiredBarTask;
// do some more stuff with requiredBar
}
What will happen when the code runs into that await? Will the ThreadPool pick up a different Task, or will the processor just idle? If I then arrange some sort of WaitAll() outside of the Parallel.ForEach() will I be able to parallelize through all of this efficiently? Does anyone have any better ideas of how I might implement this?
Edit to provide MCVE:
I cannot satisfy the Verifiable component of this as I cannot give you the API and I certainly can't give you any of the data that the API might access, however I will attempt to provide you with something up to the call out to the server.
The program can effectively go infinitely deep in the way it processes things, it is much easier to think of as a parser of specific instructions which the client is allowed to build using the GUI an a set of "bricks". In this way Dataflow looks like it could offer a decent solution.
In this example I don't take care of circular references or one Channel calculating another Channel which has already been called for by the Parallel.ForEach() method; in my code this is handled by some logic and Concurrent lists to check when various things have been called.
public abstract class Class
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public float[] Data {get;set;}
async public Task CalculateData(IsampleService proxy){}
}
public class Channel : Class
{
public Class[] ChildClasses {get;set;}
async public override Task CalculateData(IsampleService proxy)
{
foreach(Class childClass in ChildClasses)
{
// not the real processing but this step could be anything. There is a class to handle what happens here, but it is unnecessary for this post.
if(childClass.Data==null) await childClass.CalculateData(proxy);
this.Data = childClass.Data;
}
}
}
public class Input : Class
{
async public override Task CalculateData(IsampleService proxy)
{
this.Data = await proxy.ReturnData(this.Name);
}
}
async public static Task ProcessDataForExport(Channel[] channelArray)
{
ChannelFactory<IsampleService> factory = new ChannelFactory<IsampleService>(new NetNamedPipeBinding(), new EndpointAddress(baseAddress));
IsampleService proxy = factory.CreateChannel();
Parallel.ForEach(channelArray, channel =>
{
channel.CalculateData();
});
// Task.WhenAll() might be a better alternative to the Parallel.ForEach() here.
}

What will happen when the code runs into that await?
The same thing that happens for any await statement: after having evaluated whatever expression or statement retrieves the Task to be awaited, the method will return. For all intents and purposes, that is the end of the method.
Will the ThreadPool pick up a different Task, or will the processor just idle?
That depends on what else is going on. For example, what are you awaiting on? If it's a computational task queued to the thread pool, and it wasn't already assigned a thread pool thread, then sure…the thread pool might pick that up and start working on it.
If you're waiting on an I/O operation, then that won't necessarily keep the processor busy, but there may still be other tasks in the thread pool queue (such as other ones from the Parallel.ForEach() call). So that would give the processor something to work on.
Certainly, using await doesn't generally result in the processer being idle. In fact, the main reason for using it is to avoid just that (*). As the await statement causes the current method to return, you let the current thread proceed, which means that if otherwise there weren't enough threads to keep the processor busy, now it has something to do. :)
(*) (well, sort of…really, the main reason is to avoid blocking the current thread, but that has the side-effect of there being more work available for the processer to handle :) )
If I then arrange some sort of WaitAll() outside of the Parallel.ForEach() will I be able to parallelize through all of this efficiently? Does anyone have any better ideas of how I might implement this?
I don't see enough useful detail in your question to answer that. Frankly, while I can't put my finger on it, the use of await from a Parallel.ForEach() delegate seems fishy to me somehow. As soon as you call await, the delegate's method will return.
Hence, as far as Parallel.ForEach() knows, you're done with that item in the enumeration, but of course you're not. It will have to be finished elsewhere. At the very least, that seems like it would hinder the Parallel class's ability to know enough about the work it's doing to schedule it most effectively.
But maybe that's okay. Or maybe it's not great, but is the best you're going to achieve given the framework you're tied to. Hard to say.
I do encourage you to provide the MCVE that commenter Scott Chamberlain's asked for. If he's right and your problem is addressable through the dataflow API, you would do well to give him the chance to provide you an answer that shows that.

Question about terminating a thread cleanly in .NET

I understand Thread.Abort() is evil from the multitude of articles I've read on the topic, so I'm currently in the process of ripping out all of my abort's in order to replace it for a cleaner way; and after comparing user strategies from people here on stackoverflow and then after reading "How to: Create and Terminate Threads (C# Programming Guide)" from MSDN both which state an approach very much the same -- which is to use a volatile bool approach checking strategy, which is nice, but I still have a few questions....
Immediately what stands out to me here, is what if you do not have a simple worker process which is just running a loop of crunching code? For instance for me, my process is a background file uploader process, I do in fact loop through each file, so that's something, and sure I could add my while (!_shouldStop) at the top which covers me every loop iteration, but I have many more business processes which occur before it hits it's next loop iteration, I want this cancel procedure to be snappy; don't tell me I need to sprinkle these while loops every 4-5 lines down throughout my entire worker function?!
I really hope there is a better way, could somebody please advise me on if this is in fact, the correct [and only?] approach to do this, or strategies they have used in the past to achieve what I am after.
Thanks gang.
Further reading: All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. What if it is a linear, but timely background operation?

Unfortunately there may not be a better option. It really depends on your specific scenario. The idea is to stop the thread gracefully at safe points. That is the crux of the reason why Thread.Abort is not good; because it is not guaranteed to occur at safe points. By sprinkling the code with a stopping mechanism you are effectively manually defining the safe points. This is called cooperative cancellation. There are basically 4 broad mechanisms for doing this. You can choose the one that best fits your situation.
Poll a stopping flag
You have already mentioned this method. This a pretty common one. Make periodic checks of the flag at safe points in your algorithm and bail out when it gets signalled. The standard approach is to mark the variable volatile. If that is not possible or inconvenient then you can use a lock. Remember, you cannot mark a local variable as volatile so if a lambda expression captures it through a closure, for example, then you would have to resort to a different method for creating the memory barrier that is required. There is not a whole lot else that needs to be said for this method.
Use the new cancellation mechanisms in the TPL
This is similar to polling a stopping flag except that it uses the new cancellation data structures in the TPL. It is still based on cooperative cancellation patterns. You need to get a CancellationToken and the periodically check IsCancellationRequested. To request cancellation you would call Cancel on the CancellationTokenSource that originally provided the token. There is a lot you can do with the new cancellation mechanisms. You can read more about here.
Use wait handles
This method can be useful if your worker thread requires waiting on an specific interval or for a signal during its normal operation. You can Set a ManualResetEvent, for example, to let the thread know it is time to stop. You can test the event using the WaitOne function which returns a bool indicating whether the event was signalled. The WaitOne takes a parameter that specifies how much time to wait for the call to return if the event was not signaled in that amount of time. You can use this technique in place of Thread.Sleep and get the stopping indication at the same time. It is also useful if there are other WaitHandle instances that the thread may have to wait on. You can call WaitHandle.WaitAny to wait on any event (including the stop event) all in one call. Using an event can be better than calling Thread.Interrupt since you have more control over of the flow of the program (Thread.Interrupt throws an exception so you would have to strategically place the try-catch blocks to perform any necessary cleanup).
Specialized scenarios
There are several one-off scenarios that have very specialized stopping mechanisms. It is definitely outside the scope of this answer to enumerate them all (never mind that it would be nearly impossible). A good example of what I mean here is the Socket class. If the thread is blocked on a call to Send or Receive then calling Close will interrupt the socket on whatever blocking call it was in effectively unblocking it. I am sure there are several other areas in the BCL where similiar techniques can be used to unblock a thread.
Interrupt the thread via Thread.Interrupt
The advantage here is that it is simple and you do not have to focus on sprinkling your code with anything really. The disadvantage is that you have little control over where the safe points are in your algorithm. The reason is because Thread.Interrupt works by injecting an exception inside one of the canned BCL blocking calls. These include Thread.Sleep, WaitHandle.WaitOne, Thread.Join, etc. So you have to be wise about where you place them. However, most the time the algorithm dictates where they go and that is usually fine anyway especially if your algorithm spends most of its time in one of these blocking calls. If you algorithm does not use one of the blocking calls in the BCL then this method will not work for you. The theory here is that the ThreadInterruptException is only generated from .NET waiting call so it is likely at a safe point. At the very least you know that the thread cannot be in unmanaged code or bail out of a critical section leaving a dangling lock in an acquired state. Despite this being less invasive than Thread.Abort I still discourage its use because it is not obvious which calls respond to it and many developers will be unfamiliar with its nuances.

Well, unfortunately in multithreading you often have to compromise "snappiness" for cleanliness... you can exit a thread immediately if you Interrupt it, but it won't be very clean. So no, you don't have to sprinkle the _shouldStop checks every 4-5 lines, but if you do interrupt your thread then you should handle the exception and exit out of the loop in a clean manner.
Update
Even if it's not a looping thread (i.e. perhaps it's a thread that performs some long-running asynchronous operation or some type of block for input operation), you can Interrupt it, but you should still catch the ThreadInterruptedException and exit the thread cleanly. I think that the examples you've been reading are very appropriate.
Update 2.0
Yes I have an example... I'll just show you an example based on the link you referenced:
public class InterruptExample
{
private Thread t;
private volatile boolean alive;
public InterruptExample()
{
alive = false;
t = new Thread(()=>
{
try
{
while (alive)
{
/* Do work. */
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException exception)
{
/* Clean up. */
}
});
t.IsBackground = true;
}
public void Start()
{
alive = true;
t.Start();
}
public void Kill(int timeout = 0)
{
// somebody tells you to stop the thread
t.Interrupt();
// Optionally you can block the caller
// by making them wait until the thread exits.
// If they leave the default timeout,
// then they will not wait at all
t.Join(timeout);
}
}

If cancellation is a requirement of the thing you're building, then it should be treated with as much respect as the rest of your code--it may be something you have to design for.
Lets assume that your thread is doing one of two things at all times.
Something CPU bound
Waiting for the kernel
If you're CPU bound in the thread in question, you probably have a good spot to insert the bail-out check. If you're calling into someone else's code to do some long-running CPU-bound task, then you might need to fix the external code, move it out of process (aborting threads is evil, but aborting processes is well-defined and safe), etc.
If you're waiting for the kernel, then there's probably a handle (or fd, or mach port, ...) involved in the wait. Usually if you destroy the relevant handle, the kernel will return with some failure code immediately. If you're in .net/java/etc. you'll likely end up with an exception. In C, whatever code you already have in place to handle system call failures will propagate the error up to a meaningful part of your app. Either way, you break out of the low-level place fairly cleanly and in a very timely manner without needing new code sprinkled everywhere.
A tactic I often use with this kind of code is to keep track of a list of handles that need to be closed and then have my abort function set a "cancelled" flag and then close them. When the function fails it can check the flag and report failure due to cancellation rather than due to whatever the specific exception/errno was.
You seem to be implying that an acceptable granularity for cancellation is at the level of a service call. This is probably not good thinking--you are much better off cancelling the background work synchronously and joining the old background thread from the foreground thread. It's way cleaner becasue:
It avoids a class of race conditions when old bgwork threads come back to life after unexpected delays.
It avoids potential hidden thread/memory leaks caused by hanging background processes by making it possible for the effects of a hanging background thread to hide.
There are two reasons to be scared of this approach:
You don't think you can abort your own code in a timely fashion. If cancellation is a requirement of your app, the decision you really need to make is a resource/business decision: do a hack, or fix your problem cleanly.
You don't trust some code you're calling because it's out of your control. If you really don't trust it, consider moving it out-of-process. You get much better isolation from many kinds of risks, including this one, that way.

The best answer largely depends on what you're doing in the thread.
Like you said, most answers revolve around polling a shared boolean every couple lines. Even though you may not like it, this is often the simplest scheme. If you want to make your life easier, you can write a method like ThrowIfCancelled(), which throws some kind of exception if you're done. The purists will say this is (gasp) using exceptions for control flow, but then again cacelling is exceptional imo.
If you're doing IO operations (like network stuff), you may want to consider doing everything using async operations.
If you're doing a sequence of steps, you could use the IEnumerable trick to make a state machine. Example:
<
abstract class StateMachine : IDisposable
{
public abstract IEnumerable<object> Main();
public virtual void Dispose()
{
/// ... override with free-ing code ...
}
bool wasCancelled;
public bool Cancel()
{
// ... set wasCancelled using locking scheme of choice ...
}
public Thread Run()
{
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
foreach(var x in Main())
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
}
}
finally { Dispose(); }
});
thread.Start()
}
}
class MyStateMachine : StateMachine
{
public override IEnumerabl<object> Main()
{
DoSomething();
yield return null;
DoSomethingElse();
yield return null;
}
}
// then call new MyStateMachine().Run() to run.
>
Overengineering? It depends how many state machines you use. If you just have 1, yes. If you have 100, then maybe not. Too tricky? Well, it depends. Another bonus of this approach is that it lets you (with minor modifications) move your operation into a Timer.tick callback and void threading altogether if it makes sense.
and do everything that blucz says too.

Perhaps the a piece of the problem is that you have such a long method / while loop. Whether or not you are having threading issues, you should break it down into smaller processing steps. Let's suppose those steps are Alpha(), Bravo(), Charlie() and Delta().
You could then do something like this:
public void MyBigBackgroundTask()
{
Action[] tasks = new Action[] { Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta };
int workStepSize = 0;
while (!_shouldStop)
{
tasks[workStepSize++]();
workStepSize %= tasks.Length;
};
}
So yes it loops endlessly, but checks if it is time to stop between each business step.

You don't have to sprinkle while loops everywhere. The outer while loop just checks if it's been told to stop and if so doesn't make another iteration...
If you have a straight "go do something and close out" thread (no loops in it) then you just check the _shouldStop boolean either before or after each major spot inside the thread. That way you know whether it should continue on or bail out.
for example:
public void DoWork() {
RunSomeBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
RunSomeOtherBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
//....
}

Instead of adding a while loop where a loop doesn't otherwise belong, add something like if (_shouldStop) CleanupAndExit(); wherever it makes sense to do so. There's no need to check after every single operation or sprinkle the code all over with them. Instead, think of each check as a chance to exit the thread at that point and add them strategically with this in mind.

All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me
There are not a lot of ways to make code take a long time. Looping is a pretty essential programming construct. Making code take a long time without looping takes a huge amount of statements. Hundreds of thousands.
Or calling some other code that is doing the looping for you. Yes, hard to make that code stop on demand. That just doesn't work.