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.

How to achieve sequential blocking behavior in multithread application?

I'm writing an application that should simulate the behavior of a PLC. This means I have to run several threads making sure only one thread at a time is active and all others are suspended.
For example:
thread 1 repeats every 130ms and blocks all other threads. The effective runtime is 30ms and the remaining 100ms before the thread restarts can be used by other threads.
thread 2 repeats every 300ms and blocks all threads except for thread 1. The effective runtime is 50ms (the remaining 250ms can be used by other threads). Thread 2 is paused until thread 1 has finished executing code (the remaining 100ms of thread 1) and once thread 1 is asleep it resumes from where it has been paused
thread 3 repeats every 1000ms. The effective runtime is 100ms. This thread continues execution only if all other threads are suspended.
The highest priority is to complete the tasks before they are called again, otherwise I have to react, therefore a thread that should be blocked should not run until a certain point, otherwise multicore processing would elaborate the code and only wait to pass the results.
I read several posts and learned that Thread.suspend is not recomended and semaphore or monitor operations mean that the code is executed until a specific and fixed point in the code while I have to pause the threads exactly where the execution has arrived when an other thread (with higher "priority") is called.
I also looked at the priority setting but it doesn't seem to be 100% relevant since the system can override priorities.
Is there a correct or at least solid way to code the blocking mechanism?

I don't think you need to burden yourself with Threads at all. Instead, you can use Tasks with a prioritised TaskScheduler (it's not too hard to write or find by googling).
This makes the code quite easy to write, for example the highest priority thread might be something like:
while (!cancellationRequested)
{
var repeatTask = Task.Delay(130);
// Do your high priority work
await repeatTask;
}
Your other tasks will have a similar basic layout, but they will be given a lower priority in the task scheduler (this is usually handled by the task scheduler having a separate queue for each of the task priorities). Once in a while, they can check whether there is a higher priority task, and if so, they can do await Task.Yield();. In fact, in your case, it seems like you don't even need real queues - that makes this a lot easier, and even better, allows you to use Task.Yield really efficiently.
The end result is that all three of your periodic tasks are efficiently run on just a single thread (or even no thread at all if they're all waiting).
This does rely on coöperative multi-tasking, of course. It's not really possible to handle full blown real-time like pre-emption on Windows - and partial pre-emption solutions tend to be full of problems. If you're in control of most of the time spent in the task (and offload any other work using asynchronous I/O), the coöperative solution is actually far more efficient, and can give you a lot less latency (though it really shouldn't matter much).

I hope I don't missunderstand your question :)
One possibility to your problem might be to use a concurrent queue: https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/dd267265(v=vs.110).aspx
For example you create a enum to control your state and init the queue:
private ConcurrentQueue<Action> _clientActions ;
private enum Statuskatalog
{
Idle,
Busy
};
Create a timer to start and create a timerfunktion.
Timer _taskTimer = new Timer(ProcessPendingTasks, null, 100, 333);
private void ProcessPendingTasks(object x)
{
_status = Statuskatalog.Busy;
_taskTimer.Change(Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
Action currentTask;
while( _clientActions.TryDequeue( out currentTask ))
{
var task = new Task(currentTask);
task.Start();
task.Wait();
}
_status=Statuskatalog.Idle;
}
Now you only have to add your tasks as delegates to the queue:
_clientActions.Enqueue(delegate { **Your task** });
if (_status == Statuskatalog.Idle) _taskTimer.Change(0, 333);
On this base, you can manage your special requirements you were asking for.
Hope this was, what you were searching for.

Windows Service how to slow down infinite loop

The way I was told to make windows services is as followed:
Thread serviceThread = new Thread(new Thread(runProc())
Boolean isRunning = true;
if (_isRunning)
{
serviceThread.Start();
}else
close and log service
void runProc()
{
while(_isRunning)
{
//Service tasks
}
_isRunning = false;
}
This has worked fine for me so far but now I need to make a service that has big breaks in it, up to 2 hours at a time. Also I have started using timers so nothing is being done in the infinite loop other than stopping runProc() running over and over again which I can imagine is bad because threads are being made and remade a lot.
My question is, I have read that it is bad practice to put Thread.Sleep(big number) in that while(_isRunning) infinite loop, is this true? If this is the case, how do I get around the loop running constantly and using loads of resource? There is literally nothing being done in the loop right now, it is all handled in the tickevent of my timer, the only reason I have a loop is to stop runProc ending.
Thanks a lot an sorry if I explain myself badly

Thread.Sleep is bad because it cannot be (easily) interrupted1.
I generally prefer to use a ManualResetEvent or similar:
class abc {
Thread serviceThread = new Thread(new Thread(runProc())
ManualResetEvent abort = new ManualResetEvent(false);
void Start(){
serviceThread.Start();
}
void Stop(){
abort.Set();
serviceThread.Join();
}
void runProc()
{
while(!abort.WaitOne(delay))
{
//Service tasks
}
}
}
Hopefully you get the gist, not a great code sample.
The delay can be as large or small as you want (and can be arbitrarily recomputed during each loop). The WaitOne call will either delay the progress of this thread for delay milliseconds or, if Stop is called, will cause the loop to exit immediately.
1To summarize my position from the comments below - it can only be interrupted by blunt tools like Thread.Abort or Thread.Interrupt which both share the failing (to a greater or lesser extent) that they can also introduce their associated exceptions at various other places in your code. If you can guarantee that the thread is actually inside the Thread.Sleep call then the latter may be okay - but if you can make such a guarantee, you can also usually arrange to use a less blunt inter-thread communication mechanism - such as the one I've suggested in this answer.

I've always written services with a main infinite loop, not timers. Inside the loop, I check to see if there's any work to do, if so I do the work, if not I call Thread.Sleep(). That means that as long as there's work to be done, the loop will keep iterating, running as fast as it can. When the queue of work "dries up", it sleeps a little (a few seconds or minutes) while more work becomes available.
That's always worked really well for back-end jobs on a server where there's a constant stream of new work to be done throughout the day (and night). If you have big periods with no work the service will wake many times to check and then go back to sleep. You might like that or not. As long as the check is quick, it shouldn't be an issue. An alternative is to use a scheduled task (or database job) so that you know that work will be completed at specific times throughout the day. That's a better approach in some cases.

C# program using up too much CPU?

I have a program that starts constantly juggles between 3 separate timers.
The main thread of my application has a while loop which constantly checks if a global variable has been set to true and if it has, it will stop one timer and launch two other ones - one continuously, another to stop it automatically if it isn't commanded to stop for whatever reason.
This while loop has a condition of (1==1) so that it runs forever.
In the task manager (XP) I see that my program is using up 50% of cpu on a more or less idle system.
Is there a way to decrease that number by decreasing the speed of the while loop or something?
Thanks.

Is there a way to decrease that number by decreasing the speed of the while loop or something?
Just stop doing a busy loop. There are better ways of coordinating events between threads. Consider using Monitor.Wait/Pulse, or AutoResetEvent / ManualResetEvent. Basically, the thread that sets the global variable should signal that it's done so. Alternatively, if your main thread wouldn't be doing anything else, why not add a normal C# event so that whenever the variable is changed, the event is raised and the appropriate action can be taken?

Your program performs busy waiting, which is a bad practice. You should change your logic so that instead of looping, you block on some kind of synchronization primitive (also known as wait handle).
Blocking on a wait handle is not an option for the UI thread, so you would have to create three threads in total and implement the scheme like this:
The UI thread does not concern itself at all with what other threads to. No looping, no sleeping, no blocking.
The new "controller" thread would start the existing "worker" thread and then immediately block (e.g. on an event that is not signaled). It will remain in this state, without consuming CPU, until the event is signaled (i.e. the "worker" completes).
The "worker" thread would run its course and then signal the event.

Is there a way to decrease that number by decreasing the speed of the while loop or something?
Yes, you could insert a call to Thread.Sleep(n). With a granularity of ~20 ms.
But the far better option would be using a Waithandle.
Your main thread would Wait on the handle and the end of the timer code would signal it to wake up.

You need to sleep the threat for a given number of ms. Look at the Thread.sleep() function and place it within your while loop.

The easiest way to slow down a loop like this is to just add a System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100); For every iteration the process will sleep for 100 ms and it will not use 50% cpu anymore.

You can use Threads instead of Timer it costlier than Thread. Or Please check the thread state of your time which stopped before start another. You can improve performance by cutting down your code logic.
Hope this will helps you. :)

While the answers here aren't wrong per-say, They don't really address a lot of issues with doing while(true) loops which is what while(1==1) is.
First of, even if the loop is running the entire time your application is in use, you will want to shit it down at some point, say when the user exits your application, because if you have a thread with a constant loop, even if the user closes the UI window, the process will remain until the thread exits (which is never in a while true loop) or until the user becomes wise and closes it from the task manager.
You COULD solve this by putting a true conditional in the while conditional check that references a accessible property outside the loop.
Example:
private bool RequestExit = false;
private Thread MyLoopThread;
private void MyLoop()
{
while (!RequestExit)
{
//Do stuff!
Sleep(1);
}
}
public void StartLoop()
{
RequestExit = false;
MyLoopThread = new Thread(MyLoop);
MyLoopThread.Start();
}
public void StopLoop()
{
RequestExit = true;
}
That is the bare-bones and doesn't even get into avoiding double launches or double shutdown events.
A much cleaner way would be to set an arbitrary interval that you want to pool at, 10ms or so should do just fine for pretty much any real time event, and trigger an method to fire at that interval.
private Timer DoStuffTimer;
private void DoStuffMethod(object obj = null)
{
//Do stuff!
}
public void StartLoop()
{
DoStuffTimer = new Timer(DoStuffMethod,null,10,10);
}
public void StopLoop()
{
DoStuffTimer.Dispose();
}

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.