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.

Best Practices Concerning Method Locking

I have a method whom access myst be synchronized allowing only one thread at once to go though it. Here is my current implementation:
private Boolean m_NoNeedToProceed;
private Object m_SynchronizationObject = new Object();
public void MyMethod()
{
lock (m_SynchronizationObject)
{
if (m_NoNeedToProceed)
return;
Now I was thinking about changing it a little bit like so:
private Boolean m_NoNeedToProceed;
private Object m_SynchronizationObject = new Object();
public void MyMethod()
{
if (m_NoNeedToProceed)
return;
lock (m_SynchronizationObject)
{
Shouldn't it be better to do a quick return before locking it so that calling threads can proceed without waiting for the previous one to complete the method call?

Shouldn't it be better to do a quick return before locking it...
No. A lock is is not just a mutual-exclusion mechanism, it's also a memory barrier1. Without a lock, you could introduce a data race if any of the concurrent threads tries to modify the variable2.
BTW, locks have a good performance when there is no contention, so you wouldn't be gaining much performance anyway. As always, refrain from making assumptions about performance, especially this "close to the metal". If in doubt, measure!
...so that calling threads can proceed without waiting for the previous one to complete the method call?
This just means you are holding the lock for longer than necessary. Release the lock as soon as the shared memory no longer needs protection (which might be sooner than the method exit), and you won't need to try to artificially circumvent it.
1 I.e. triggers a cache coherency mechanism so all CPU cores see the "same" memory.
2 For example, one thread writes to the variable, but that change lingers in one core's write buffer for some time, so other threads on other cores don't see it immediately.

Yes, as long as m_NoNeedToProceed doesn't have any race conditions associated with it.
If the method takes a long time to run, and some threads do not need to actually access the critical sections of the method. Then it would be best to let them return early without getting the lock.

Yes it's better to that before you lock.
Make m_NoNeedToProceed volatile
Just a disclaimer: volatile doesn't make it thread safe. It just causes a barrier to check if the value has changed in another processor.

When would you ever use nested locking?

I was reading in Albahari's excellent eBook on threading and came across the following scenario he mentions that "a thread can repeatedly lock the same object in a nested (reentrant) fashion"
lock (locker)
lock (locker)
lock (locker)
{
// Do something...
}
as well as
static readonly object _locker = new object();
static void Main()
{
lock (_locker)
{
AnotherMethod();
// We still have the lock - because locks are reentrant.
}
}
static void AnotherMethod()
{
lock (_locker) { Console.WriteLine ("Another method"); }
}
From the explanation, any threads will block on the first (outermost) lock and that it is unlocked only after the outer lock has exited.
He states "nested locking is useful when one method calls another within a lock"
Why is this useful? When would you NEED to do this and what problem does it solve?

Lets say you have two public methods, A() and B(), which both need the same lock.
Furthermore, let's say that A() calls B()
Since the client can also call B() directly, you need to lock in both methods.
Therefore, when A() is called, B() will take the lock a second time.

It's not so much that it's useful to do so, as it's useful to be allowed to. Consider how you may often have public methods that call other public methods. If the public method called into locks, and the public method calling into it needs to lock on the wider scope of what it does, then being able to use recursive locks means you can do so.
There are some cases where you might feel like using two lock objects, but you're going to be using them together and hence if you make a mistake, there's a big risk of deadlock. If you can deal with the wider scope being given to the lock, then using the same object for both cases - and recursing in those cases where you'd be using both objects - will remove those particular deadlocks.
However...
This usefulness is debatable.
On the first case, I'll quote from Joe Duffy:
Recursion typically indicates an over-simplification in your synchronization design that often leads to less reliable code. Some designs use lock recursion as a way to avoid splitting functions into those that take locks and those that assume locks are already taken. This can admittedly lead to a reduction in code size and therefore a shorter time-to-write, but results in a more brittle design in the end.
It is always a better idea to factor code into public entry-points that take non-recursive locks, and internal worker functions that assert a lock is held. Recursive lock calls are redundant work that contributes to raw performance overhead. But worse, depending on recursion can make it more difficult to understand the synchronization behavior of your program, in particular at what boundaries invariants are supposed to hold. Usually we’d like to say that the first line after a lock acquisition represents an invariant “safe point” for an object, but as soon as recursion is introduced this statement can no longer be made confidently. This in turn makes it more difficult to ensure correct and reliable behavior when dynamically composed.
(Joe has more to say on the topic elsewhere in his blog, and in his book on concurrent programming).
The second case is balanced by the cases where recursive lock entry just makes different types of deadlock happen, or push up the rate of contention so high that there might as well be deadlocks (This guy says he'd prefer it just to hit a deadlock the first time you recursed, I disagree - I'd much prefer it just to throw a big exception that brought my app down with a nice stack-trace).
One of the worse things, is it simplifies at the wrong time: When you're writing code it can be simpler to use lock recursion than to split things out more and think more deeply about just what should be locking when. However, when you're debugging code, the fact that leaving a lock does not mean leaving that lock complicates things. What a bad way around - it's when we think we know what we're doing that complicated code is a temptation to be enjoyed in your off-time so you don't indulge while on the clock, and when we realised we messed up that we most want things to be nice and simple.
You really don't want to mix them with condition variables.
Hey, POSIX-threads only has them because of a dare!
At least the lock keyword means we avoid the possibility of not having matching Monitor.Exit()s for every Monitor.Enter()s which makes some of the risks less likely. Up until the time you need to do something outside of that model.
With more recent locking classes, .NET does it's bit to help people avoid using lock-recursion, without blocking those who use older coding patterns. ReaderWriterLockSlim has a constructor overload that lets you use it recursion, but the default is LockRecursionPolicy.NoRecursion.
Often in dealing with issues of concurrency we have to make a decision between a more fraught technique that could potentially give us better concurrency but which requires much more care to be sure of correctness vs a simpler technique that could potentially give worse concurrency but where it is easier to be sure of the correctness. Using locks recursively gives us a technique where we will hold locks longer and have less good concurrency, and also be less sure of correctness and have harder debugging.

If you have a resource that you want exclusive control over, but many methods act upon this resource. A method might not be able to assume that it is locked so it will lock it within it's method. If it's locked in the outer method AND inner method, then it provides a situation similar to the example in the book. I cannot see a time where I would want to lock twice in the same code block.

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.

One reader, many writers

Related: How to catch exceptions from a ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem?
I am catching exceptions in background threads started by ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(), and propagating them to the main thread via a shared instance variable.
The background threads do this:
try
{
... stuff happens here...
}
catch (Exception ex1)
{
lock(eLock)
{
// record only the first exception
if (_pendingException == null)
_pendingException = ex1;
}
}
There are multiple potential writers to _pendingException - multiple background threads - so I protect it with a lock.
In the main thread, must I take the lock before reading _pendingException? Or can I simply do this:
if (_pendingException != null)
ThrowOrHandle();
EDIT:
ps: I would prefer to NOT take the lock on the reader thread because it is on the hot path, and I'd be taking and releasing the lock very, very often.

You will not be able to get away this easy. You will lose exceptions if another thread throws it before the reader dealt with the existing one. What you need here is a synchronized queue:
try
{
... stuff happens here...
}
catch (Exception ex1)
{
lock(queue)
{
queue.Enqueue(ex1);
Monitor.PulseAll(queue);
}
}
And to process it:
while(!stopped)
lock (queue)
{
while (queue.Count > 0)
processException(queue.Dequeue());
Monitor.Wait(queue);
}

Reads and writes to references are atomic (See C# Spec) and I'm nearly certain that lock does create a memory barrier so yes what you are doing is probably safe.
But really just use the lock around your read. It's guaranteed to work; if you every see it accessed not in a lock you know something is wrong, if the lock is causing you performance issues then you're checking the flag way too often, and it's just the "right thing to do."

Even though you may only care about the first exception, you may still want to use lock for at least two reasons:
In multi-core CPUs, without making a variable volatile (or performing any memory barrier operation) , there might be a moment when threads running on different cores may see different values. (I am not sure calling lock(queue) in a worker thread will cause any memory barrier operation though). (update) Calling lock(queue) in a worker thread will cause memory barrier operation as pointed out by Eric in the comment below.
2. Please keep it mind that References are not addresses (by Eric Lippert) (if you are assuming references are 32-bit addresses in 32-bit CLR that can be read atomically). The implementation of references can be changed to some opaque structures that may not be read atomically in future release of CLR (even though I think it is not likely to happen in foreseeable future :)) and your code will break.