Can I stop a System.Threading.Timer

Question

I have an application that uses timers to occasionally run monitoring tasks on secondary threads. Some of these cleanup tasks take a lot of time and I would like to be able to abort these tasks (gracefully if possible) when my user ends the program.

Is there any way to abort the thread programatically as I can with Thread.Abort(), or would I have to add a flag to the code to indicate that the thread has finished and check for that in valrious places in the code that is started by the timer?

Wouldn't termination of the app terminate all of the threads? — CJ7, Nov 15 '12 at 08:17
Does this answer your question? [Reliably stop System.Threading.Timer?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6379541/reliably-stop-system-threading-timer) — Michael Freidgeim, Nov 21 '20 at 22:41

score 5 · Answer 1 · answered Nov 29 '11 at 19:14

5

You can stop the timer before it's callback executes using .change, but once the callback starts executing you should use an application level flag to allow your code to exit.

As a side note, you shouldn't use thread.abort() unless you are absolutely 100% sure that you know the state it is going to be left in. it can seriously destabilize your application in strange ways.

answered Nov 29 '11 at 19:14

Bradley Uffner

16,641
3
39
76

+1 on avoid Thread.Abort() like the plague... They don't even allow Abort() in the TPL. – James Michael Hare Nov 29 '11 at 19:23

score 4 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 10 '13 at 05:43

4

use this.Timer.Change(Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite); first i have use .dispose method but it does not work in my case so i have use Timer.change.

this is the best solution i have find.

answered Sep 10 '13 at 05:43

sizar surani

69
6

score 4 · Accepted Answer · answered Nov 29 '11 at 19:13

There is no way to know the Thread on which a Threading.Timer callback will run ahead of time. Hence there is no general way to abort it. It is possible to have the callback itself communicate the Thread instance but it opens up a couple of race conditions

Note: In general using Abort is a bad practice. It's a fairly reliable way to end up with hard to detect deadlocks and / or resource leaks. It's much better to use a passive mechanism like CancellationToken

Again, +1 on ills of aborting. – James Michael Hare Nov 29 '11 at 19:23 — James Michael Hare, Nov 29 '11 at 19:23

score 1 · Answer 4 · answered Nov 29 '11 at 19:59

You mean something along these lines?

using System;
using System.Threading ;

class AppCore : IDisposable
{
    Timer    TimerInstance ;
    string[] Args          ;

    public AppCore( string[] args )
    {
        if ( args == null ) throw new ArgumentNullException("args") ;
        this.TimerInstance   = new Timer( Tick , null , new TimeSpan(0,0,30) , new TimeSpan(0,0,15) ) ;
        this.Args            = args ;
        this.Cancelled       = false ;
        this.Disposed        = false ;
        return ;
    }

    public int Run()
    {
        // do something useful
        return 0 ;
    }

    private bool Cancelled ;
    public void Cancel()
    {
        lock( TimerInstance )
        {
            Cancelled = true ;
            TimerInstance.Change( System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite , System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite ) ;
        }
        return ;
    }

    private void Tick( object state )
    {
        if ( !Cancelled )
        {
            // do something on each tick
        }
        return ;
    }

    private bool Disposed ;
    public void Dispose()
    {
        lock ( TimerInstance )
        {
            if ( !Disposed )
            {
                using ( WaitHandle handle = new EventWaitHandle( false , EventResetMode.ManualReset ) )
                {
                    TimerInstance.Dispose( handle ) ;
                    handle.WaitOne() ;
                }
                Disposed = true ;
            }
        }
        return ;
    }

}

e-info128 · Answer 5 · 2015-06-08T20:23:42.250

-1

public void stopTimer(){
    myThreadingTimer = null;
}

Explication: Destroy object = destroy proccess.

edited Jun 08 '15 at 20:23

answered Jun 07 '15 at 21:43

e-info128

3,727
10
40
57

Generally, answers are much more helpful if they include an explanation of what the code is intended to do, and why that solves the problem without introducing others. (This post was flagged by at least one user, presumably because they thought an answer without explanation should be deleted.) – Nathan Tuggy Jun 08 '15 at 00:59
Explication: Destroy object = destroy proccess. – e-info128 Jun 08 '15 at 20:24
Running timers are not garbage collected https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18136735/can-timers-get-automatically-garbage-collected – Michael Freidgeim Nov 21 '20 at 22:35

Can I stop a System.Threading.Timer

5 Answers5