Develop Reference

Reliably stop System.Threading.Timer?

Well I've searched a lot for a solution to this. I'm looking for a clean and simple way to prevent the callback method of a System.Threading.Timer from being invoked after I've stopped it.
I can't seem to find any, and this has led me, on occassion, to resort to the dreaded thread-thread.sleep-thread.abort combo.
Can it be done using lock?

An easier solution might to be to set the Timer never to resume; the method Timer.Change can take values for dueTime and period that instruct the timer never to restart:
this.Timer.Change(Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
Whilst changing to use System.Timers.Timer might be a "better" solution, there are always going to be times when that's not practical; just using Timeout.Infinite should suffice.

like Conrad Frix suggested you should use the System.Timers.Timer class instead, like:
private System.Timers.Timer _timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
private volatile bool _requestStop = false;
public constructor()
{
_timer.Interval = 100;
_timer.Elapsed += OnTimerElapsed;
_timer.AutoReset = false;
_timer.Start();
}
private void OnTimerElapsed(object sender, System.Timers.ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
// do work....
if (!_requestStop)
{
_timer.Start();//restart the timer
}
}
private void Stop()
{
_requestStop = true;
_timer.Stop();
}
private void Start()
{
_requestStop = false;
_timer.Start();
}

The MSDN Docs suggest that you use the Dispose(WaitHandle) method to stop the timer + be informed when callbacks will no longer be invoked.

For the System.Threading.Timer one can do the following (Will also protect the callback-method from working on a disposed timer - ObjectDisposedException):
class TimerHelper : IDisposable
{
private System.Threading.Timer _timer;
private readonly object _threadLock = new object();
public event Action<Timer,object> TimerEvent;
public void Start(TimeSpan timerInterval, bool triggerAtStart = false,
object state = null)
{
Stop();
_timer = new System.Threading.Timer(Timer_Elapsed, state,
System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite, System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite);
if (triggerAtStart)
{
_timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromTicks(0), timerInterval);
}
else
{
_timer.Change(timerInterval, timerInterval);
}
}
public void Stop(TimeSpan timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(2))
{
// Wait for timer queue to be emptied, before we continue
// (Timer threads should have left the callback method given)
// - http://woowaabob.blogspot.dk/2010/05/properly-disposing-systemthreadingtimer.html
// - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/danielvl/archive/2011/02/18/disposing-system-threading-timer.aspx
lock (_threadLock)
{
if (_timer != null)
{
ManualResetEvent waitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false)
if (_timer.Dispose(waitHandle))
{
// Timer has not been disposed by someone else
if (!waitHandle.WaitOne(timeout))
throw new TimeoutException("Timeout waiting for timer to stop");
}
waitHandle.Close(); // Only close if Dispose has completed succesful
_timer = null;
}
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
Stop();
TimerEvent = null;
}
void Timer_Elapsed(object state)
{
// Ensure that we don't have multiple timers active at the same time
// - Also prevents ObjectDisposedException when using Timer-object
// inside this method
// - Maybe consider to use _timer.Change(interval, Timeout.Infinite)
// (AutoReset = false)
if (Monitor.TryEnter(_threadLock))
{
try
{
if (_timer==null)
return;
Action<Timer, object> timerEvent = TimerEvent;
if (timerEvent != null)
{
timerEvent(_timer, state);
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_threadLock);
}
}
}
}
This is how one can use it:
void StartTimer()
{
TimerHelper _timerHelper = new TimerHelper();
_timerHelper.TimerEvent += (timer,state) => Timer_Elapsed();
_timerHelper.Start(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
System.Threading.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(12));
_timerHelper.Stop();
}
void Timer_Elapsed()
{
// Do what you want to do
}

For what it's worth, we use this pattern quite a bit:
// set up timer
Timer timer = new Timer(...);
...
// stop timer
timer.Dispose();
timer = null;
...
// timer callback
{
if (timer != null)
{
..
}
}

This answer relates to System.Threading.Timer
I've read a lot of nonsense about how to synchronize disposal of System.Threading.Timer all over the net. So that's why I'm posting this in an attempt to rectify the situation somewhat. Feel free to tell me off / call me out if something I'm writing is wrong ;-)
Pitfalls
In my opinion there's these pitfalls:
Timer.Dispose(WaitHandle) can return false. It does so in case it's already been disposed (I had to look at the source code). In that case it won't set the WaitHandle - so don't wait on it!
not handling a WaitHandle timeout. Seriously - what are you waiting for in case you're not interested in a timeout?
Concurrency issue as mentioned here on msdn where an ObjectDisposedException can occur during (not after) disposal.
Timer.Dispose(WaitHandle) does not work properly with -Slim waithandles, or not as one would expect. For example, the following does not work (it blocks forever):
using(var manualResetEventSlim = new ManualResetEventSlim)
{
timer.Dispose(manualResetEventSlim.WaitHandle);
manualResetEventSlim.Wait();
}
Solution
Well the title is a bit "bold" i guess, but below is my attempt to deal with the issue - a wrapper which handles double-disposal, timeouts, and ObjectDisposedException. It does not provide all of the methods on Timer though - but feel free to add them.
internal class Timer
{
private readonly TimeSpan _disposalTimeout;
private readonly System.Threading.Timer _timer;
private bool _disposeEnded;
public Timer(TimeSpan disposalTimeout)
{
_disposalTimeout = disposalTimeout;
_timer = new System.Threading.Timer(HandleTimerElapsed);
}
public event Action Elapsed;
public void TriggerOnceIn(TimeSpan time)
{
try
{
_timer.Change(time, Timeout.InfiniteTimeSpan);
}
catch (ObjectDisposedException)
{
// race condition with Dispose can cause trigger to be called when underlying
// timer is being disposed - and a change will fail in this case.
// see
// https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b97tkt95(v=vs.110).aspx#Anchor_2
if (_disposeEnded)
{
// we still want to throw the exception in case someone really tries
// to change the timer after disposal has finished
// of course there's a slight race condition here where we might not
// throw even though disposal is already done.
// since the offending code would most likely already be "failing"
// unreliably i personally can live with increasing the
// "unreliable failure" time-window slightly
throw;
}
}
}
private void HandleTimerElapsed(object state)
{
Elapsed?.Invoke();
}
public void Dispose()
{
var waitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false));
// returns false on second dispose
if (_timer.Dispose(waitHandle))
{
if (waitHandle.WaitOne(_disposalTimeout))
{
_disposeEnded = true;
waitHandle.Dispose();
}
else
{
// don't dispose the wait handle, because the timer might still use it.
// Disposing it might cause an ObjectDisposedException on
// the timer thread - whereas not disposing it will
// result in the GC cleaning up the resources later
throw new TimeoutException(
"Timeout waiting for timer to stop. (...)");
}
}
}
}

You can't guarantee that your code that supposed to stop the timer will execute before timer event invocation.
For example, suppose on time moment 0 you initialized timer to call event when time moment 5 comes. Then on time moment 3 you decided that you no longer needed the call. And called method you want to write here. Then while method was JIT-ted comes time moment 4 and OS decides that your thread exhaust its time slice and switch. And timer will invoke the event no matter how you try - your code just won't have a chance to run in worst case scenario.
That's why it is safer to provide some logic in the event handler. Maybe some ManualResetEvent that will be Reset as soon as you no longer needed event invocation. So you Dispose the timer, and then set the ManualResetEvent. And in the timer event handler first thing you do is test ManualResetEvent. If it is in reset state - just return immediately. Thus you can effectively guard against undesired execution of some code.

To me, this seems to be the correct way to go:
Just call dispose when you are done with the timer. That will stop the timer and prevent future scheduled calls.
See example below.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
WriteOneEverySecond w = new WriteOneEverySecond();
w.ScheduleInBackground();
Console.ReadKey();
w.StopTimer();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
class WriteOneEverySecond
{
private Timer myTimer;
public void StopTimer()
{
myTimer.Dispose();
myTimer = null;
}
public void ScheduleInBackground()
{
myTimer = new Timer(RunJob, null, 1000, 1000);
}
public void RunJob(object state)
{
Console.WriteLine("Timer Fired at: " + DateTime.Now);
}
}

Perhaps you should do the opposite. Use system.timers.timer, set the AutoReset to false and only Start it when you want to

You can stop a timer by creating a class like this and calling it from, for example, your callback method:
public class InvalidWaitHandle : WaitHandle
{
public IntPtr Handle
{
get { return InvalidHandle; }
set { throw new InvalidOperationException(); }
}
}
Instantiating timer:
_t = new Timer(DisplayTimerCallback, TBlockTimerDisplay, 0, 1000);
Then inside callback method:
if (_secondsElapsed > 80)
{
_t.Dispose(new InvalidWaitHandle());
}

There is a MSDN link how to achieve stop timer correctly. Use ControlThreadProc() method with HandleElapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e) event synchronized by syncPoint static class variable. Comment out Thread.Sleep(testRunsFor); on ControlThreadProc() if it is not suitable(probably).
The key is there that using static variable and an atomic operation like Interlocked.CompareExchange on conditional statements.
Link :
Timer.Stop Method

Can I make this TimerQueueTimer class any more performant?

using System;
using System.Threading;
internal class TimerQueueTimer : IDisposable
{
public TimerQueueTimer(int interval, int msBeforeFirstCall)
{
this.interval = interval;
this.msBeforeFirstCall = msBeforeFirstCall;
this.callback = this.ticked;
this.isTheFirstTick = true;
this.isStopped = true;
}
public event EventHandler Ticked;
public void Start()
{
if (!this.isStopped)
{
return;
}
this.isTheFirstTick = true;
this.isStopped = false;
Computer.ChangeTimerResolutionTo(1);
NativeMethods.CreateTimerQueueTimer(
out this.handle,
IntPtr.Zero,
this.callback,
IntPtr.Zero,
(uint)this.msBeforeFirstCall,
(uint)this.interval,
CallbackExecution.ExecuteInTimerThread);
}
public void Stop()
{
if (this.isStopped)
{
return;
}
NativeMethods.DeleteTimerQueueTimer(
IntPtr.Zero,
this.handle,
IntPtr.Zero);
Computer.ClearTimerResolutionChangeTo(1);
this.isStopped = true;
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.Stop();
}
private void ticked(IntPtr parameterPointer, bool timerOrWaitFired)
{
if (this.isStopped)
{
return;
}
if (this.isTheFirstTick)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest;
}
this.isTheFirstTick = false;
var ticked = this.Ticked;
if (ticked != null)
{
ticked(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
private IntPtr handle;
private volatile bool isStopped;
private volatile bool isTheFirstTick;
private readonly WaitOrTimerDelegate callback;
private readonly int interval;
private readonly int msBeforeFirstCall;
}
(Note: Computer.ChangeTimerResolutionTo() and Computer.ClearTimerResolutionChangeTo() call timeBeginPeriod and timeEndPeriod, respectively.)
Questions:
The callback is running in the timer's thread, rather than a ThreadPool thread. This is fine as long as the callback function is fast, right?
Does setting the callback thread (and thus the timer thread) priority to Highest do anything in terms of performance?
Would it be better to make the timer interval 1ms and count ticks, raising Ticked if tickCount % interval == 0? Is a lower interval timer more accurate and precise?
Is there any reason this might be less accurate and/or precise than a similarly created timeSetEvent timer?
The reason I ask is because we are running into issues with the timer callback occasionally being delayed for up to ~50ms when the system is under heavy load. Compared to when we were previously using timeSetEvent it felt like this happened less often--though that might be just an illusion. I do know that Windows isn't deterministic, so there's only so much I can do. However, I want to make sure I've done all I can do to make this as high-priority as possible. Is there anything else I can do?

I used priority queue to solve this problem: each element of the queue contains callback address (the timer routine), pointer to callback parameters and time in future when it should be fired.
The 'time' is the priority, the logic here is to have possibility to wake up the timer thread from another thread. When callback is added to the queue by another thread the timer thread will waken up and it look for the top element of priority queue, calculates the different between current time and 'time' stored in the queue and sleeps until calculated timeout exceeds.
When the timer thread is awaken by timeout it starts new thread from thread pool which invokes callback.
I have a timer queue implementation here, it is not well tested but you can see if it helps.

Single threaded timer

I wanted a timer with the following properties:
No matter how many times start is called, only one call back thread is ever running
The time spent in the call back function was ignored with regards to the interval. E.g if the interval is 100ms and the call back takes 4000ms to execute, the callback is called at 100ms, 4100ms etc.
I couldn't see anything available so wrote the following code. Is there a better way to do this?
/**
* Will ensure that only one thread is ever in the callback
*/
public class SingleThreadedTimer : Timer
{
protected static readonly object InstanceLock = new object();
//used to check whether timer has been disposed while in call back
protected bool running = false;
virtual new public void Start()
{
lock (InstanceLock)
{
this.AutoReset = false;
this.Elapsed -= new ElapsedEventHandler(SingleThreadedTimer_Elapsed);
this.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(SingleThreadedTimer_Elapsed);
this.running = true;
base.Start();
}
}
virtual public void SingleThreadedTimer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
lock (InstanceLock)
{
DoSomethingCool();
//check if stopped while we were waiting for the lock,
//we don't want to restart if this is the case..
if (running)
{
this.Start();
}
}
}
virtual new public void Stop()
{
lock (InstanceLock)
{
running = false;
base.Stop();
}
}
}

Here's a quick example I just knocked up;
using System.Threading;
//...
public class TimerExample
{
private System.Threading.Timer m_objTimer;
private bool m_blnStarted;
private readonly int m_intTickMs = 1000;
private object m_objLockObject = new object();
public TimerExample()
{
//Create your timer object, but don't start anything yet
m_objTimer = new System.Threading.Timer(callback, m_objTimer, Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
}
public void Start()
{
if (!m_blnStarted)
{
lock (m_objLockObject)
{
if (!m_blnStarted) //double check after lock to be thread safe
{
m_blnStarted = true;
//Make it start in 'm_intTickMs' milliseconds,
//but don't auto callback when it's done (Timeout.Infinite)
m_objTimer.Change(m_intTickMs, Timeout.Infinite);
}
}
}
}
public void Stop()
{
lock (m_objLockObject)
{
m_blnStarted = false;
}
}
private void callback(object state)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("callback invoked");
//TODO: your code here
Thread.Sleep(4000);
//When your code has finished running, wait 'm_intTickMs' milliseconds
//and call the callback method again,
//but don't auto callback (Timeout.Infinite)
m_objTimer.Change(m_intTickMs, Timeout.Infinite);
}
}

The .NET Framework provides four timers. Two of these are general-purpose multithreaded
timers:
System.Threading.Timer
System.Timers.Timer
The other two are special-purpose single-threaded timers:
System.Windows.Forms.Timer (Windows Forms timer)
System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherTimer (WPF timer)
The last 2 are designed to eliminate thread-safety issues for WPF and Windows Forms applications.
For example, using WebBrowser inside a timer to capture screenshots from webpage needs to be single-threaded and gives an error at runtime if it is on another thread.
The single-thread timers have the following benefits
You can forget about thread safety.
A fresh Tick will never fire until the previous Tick has finished
processing.
You can update user interface elements and controls directly from
Tick event handling code, without calling Control.BeginInvoke or
Dispatcher.BeginIn voke.
and main disadvantage to note
One thread serves all timers—as well as the processing UI events.
Which means that the Tick event handler must execute quickly,
otherwise the user interface becomes unresponsive.
source: most are scraps from C# in a Nutshell book -> Chapter 22 -> Advanced threading -> Timers -> Single-Threaded Timers

For anyone who needs a single thread timer and wants the timer start to tick after task done.
System.Timers.Timer could do the trick without locking or [ThreadStatic]
System.Timers.Timer tmr;
void InitTimer(){
tmr = new System.Timers.Timer();
tmr.Interval = 300;
tmr.AutoReset = false;
tmr.Elapsed += OnElapsed;
}
void OnElapsed( object sender, System.Timers.ElapsedEventArgs e )
{
backgroundWorking();
// let timer start ticking
tmr.Enabled = true;
}
Credit to Alan N
source https://www.codeproject.com/Answers/405715/System-Timers-Timer-single-threaded-usage#answer2
Edit: spacing

Look at the [ThreadStatic] attribute and the .Net 4.0 ThreadLocal generic type. This will probably quickly give you a way to code this without messing with thread locking etc.
You could have a stack inside your time class, and you could implement a Monitor() method that returns a IDisposable, so you can use the timer like so:
using (_threadTimer.Monitor())
{
// do stuff
}
Have the timer-monitor pop the the interval timestamp off the stack during Dispose().
Manually coding all the locking and thread recognition is an option as has been mentioned. However, locking will influence the time used, most likely more than having to initialize an instance per thread using ThreadLocal
If you're interested, I might knock up an example later

Here is a simple PeriodicNonOverlappingTimer class, that provides just the requested features, and nothing more than that. This timer cannot be started and stopped on demand, and neither can have its interval changed. It just invokes the specified action periodically in a non overlapping manner, until the timer is disposed.
/// <summary>
/// Invokes an action on the ThreadPool at specified intervals, ensuring
/// that the invocations will not overlap, until the timer is disposed.
/// </summary>
public class PeriodicNonOverlappingTimer : IDisposable, IAsyncDisposable
{
private readonly System.Threading.Timer _timer;
public PeriodicNonOverlappingTimer(Action periodicAction,
TimeSpan dueTime, TimeSpan period)
{
// Arguments validation omitted
_timer = new(_ =>
{
var stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
periodicAction();
var nextDueTime = period - stopwatch.Elapsed;
if (nextDueTime < TimeSpan.Zero) nextDueTime = TimeSpan.Zero;
try { _timer.Change(nextDueTime, Timeout.InfiniteTimeSpan); }
catch (ObjectDisposedException) { } // Ignore this exception
});
_timer.Change(dueTime, Timeout.InfiniteTimeSpan);
}
public void Dispose() => _timer.DisposeAsync().AsTask().Wait();
public ValueTask DisposeAsync() => _timer.DisposeAsync();
}
Usage example. Shows how to create a non-overlapping timer that starts immediately, with a period of 10 seconds.
var timer = new PeriodicNonOverlappingTimer(() =>
{
DoSomethingCool();
}, TimeSpan.Zero, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
//...
timer.Dispose(); // Stop the timer once and for all
In case the DoSomethingCool fails, the exception will be thrown on the ThreadPool, causing the process to crash. So you may want to add a try/catch block, and handle all the exceptions that may occur.
The Dispose is a potentially blocking method. If the periodicAction is currently running, the Dispose will block until the last invocation is completed.
If you don't want to wait for this to happen, you can do this instead:
_ = timer.DisposeAsync(); // Stop the timer without waiting it to finish

How can I synchronize these two threads?

here is the class:
public class Ticker
{
public event EventHandler Tick;
public EventArgs e = null;
public void TickIt()
{
while (true)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(300);
if (Tick != null)
{
Tick(this, e);
}
}
}
I'm running two threads in the windows form:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
Ticker ticker1 = new Ticker();
Ticker ticker2 = new Ticker();
Thread t;
Thread t1;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
ticker1.Tick += ticker1_Tick;
ticker2.Tick += ticker2_Tick;
t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ticker1.TickIt));
t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ticker2.TickIt)));
t.Start();
t1.Start();
}
public void ticker1_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.BeginInvoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
ticker1_Tick(sender, e);
});
return;
}
richTextBox1.Text += "t1 ";
}
public void ticker2_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.BeginInvoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
ticker2_Tick(sender, e);
});
return;
}
richTextBox2.Text += "t2 ";
}
The problem is after some seconds thread t is ahead of t1 by several ticks.
First of all why is this happening, it doesn't make sense, since each thread should wait 300 ms before ticking?
Second, how can I sync these two threads, so they tick simultaneously and one doesn't get ahead of the other?
I can't put a lock before the while loop, then only one thread will be running, while the other is locked out. Putting a lock elsewhere doesn't change anything.

If you really need them to be perfectly in synch and execute the ticks in a certain order, you will need some kind of central timer as Jaime mentioned. If you need independent timing but want to prevent drift caused by Sleep being imprecise, or delay added by the time it takes to execute the event handler, something like this would work:
public class Ticker
{
public event EventHandler Tick;
public EventArgs e = null;
public void TickIt()
{
const int targetSleepTime = 300;
int nextTick = Environment.TickCount + targetSleepTime;
while (true)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(Math.Max(nextTick - Environment.TickCount, 0));
if (Tick != null)
{
Tick(this, e);
}
nextTick += targetSleepTime;
}
}
}
Just keep in mind Environment.TickCount can wrap back to Int32.MinValue when it gets to Int32.MaxValue. You'll need extra code to handle that, or maybe base the timing on DateTime.UtcNow (less overhead than DateTime.Now).

I don't think you can trust the sleep(300) to keep your threads running the same number of times independently...
One thing you could do is to have a central timer/tick generator that signals a synchronization object on each tick, and the thread function only ticks once and then WaitsForObject for the next tick to be generated from the main thread, effectively having one timer and telling the threads to tick synchronously.
Also note that the way you are subscribing to the thread function event, you need to consider race conditions in your handler functions. Each method will run on it's own thread (until the begininvoke) so, if you access any resource (class fields etc.) those would need to be synchronized. It's just too easy to forget what's going on with the threads. :(

How about using AutoResetEvent?
class Program
{
static readonly AutoResetEvent thread1Step = new AutoResetEvent(false);
static readonly AutoResetEvent thread2Step = new AutoResetEvent(false);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Thread(new ThreadStart(Thread1Main)).Start();
new Thread(new ThreadStart(Thread2Main)).Start();
}
private static void Thread1Main()
{
for (int i = 0; i < int.MaxValue; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("thread1 i=" + i);
thread1Step.Set();
thread2Step.WaitOne();
}
}
private static void Thread2Main()
{
for (int i = 0; i < int.MaxValue; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("thread2 i=" + i);
thread2Step.Set();
thread1Step.WaitOne();
}
}
}

Well you could use a Barrier if you're using .NET 4.0, but you would have to put it in your Ticker class otherwise you'll block your UI thread.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.barrier.aspx

In your Ticker class, increase your polling frequency and check the system timer until you hit the interval you're looking for. You can use TickCount or Ticks if you can live with millisecond precision, or use StopWatch for higher precision if your system supports it.
To keep them synchronized, they'll need a common reference for a start-time. You can pass this in as a specific future tick to start syncing on or use something like Tick modulus 100. Or poll for a shared static flag that signifies when to start.
You cannot have absolute precision, so define what precision range you can live with from the outset, such as plus-or-minus 5ms between your Ticker threads.
One thing that'll help is to start a shared static StopWatch instance and echo its elapsed time in all of your logging to help you characterize any delays in your app.

Synchronizing a timer to prevent overlap

I'm writing a Windows service that runs a variable length activity at intervals (a database scan and update). I need this task to run frequently, but the code to handle isn't safe to run multiple times concurrently.
How can I most simply set up a timer to run the task every 30 seconds while never overlapping executions? (I'm assuming System.Threading.Timer is the correct timer for this job, but could be mistaken).

You could do it with a Timer, but you would need to have some form of locking on your database scan and update. A simple lock to synchronize may be enough to prevent multiple runs from occurring.
That being said, it might be better to start a timer AFTER your operation is complete, and just use it one time, then stop it. Restart it after your next operation. This would give you 30 seconds (or N seconds) between events, with no chance of overlaps, and no locking.
Example :
System.Threading.Timer timer = null;
timer = new System.Threading.Timer((g) =>
{
Console.WriteLine(1); //do whatever
timer.Change(5000, Timeout.Infinite);
}, null, 0, Timeout.Infinite);
Work immediately .....Finish...wait 5 sec....Work immediately .....Finish...wait 5 sec....

I'd use Monitor.TryEnter in your elapsed code:
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockobj))
{
try
{
// we got the lock, do your work
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(lockobj);
}
}
else
{
// another elapsed has the lock
}

I prefer System.Threading.Timer for things like this, because I don't have to go through the event handling mechanism:
Timer UpdateTimer = new Timer(UpdateCallback, null, 30000, 30000);
object updateLock = new object();
void UpdateCallback(object state)
{
if (Monitor.TryEnter(updateLock))
{
try
{
// do stuff here
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(updateLock);
}
}
else
{
// previous timer tick took too long.
// so do nothing this time through.
}
}
You can eliminate the need for the lock by making the timer a one-shot and re-starting it after every update:
// Initialize timer as a one-shot
Timer UpdateTimer = new Timer(UpdateCallback, null, 30000, Timeout.Infinite);
void UpdateCallback(object state)
{
// do stuff here
// re-enable the timer
UpdateTimer.Change(30000, Timeout.Infinite);
}

instead of locking (which could cause all of your timed scans to wait and eventually stack up). You could start the scan/update in a thread and then just do a check to see if the thread is still alive.
Thread updateDBThread = new Thread(MyUpdateMethod);
...
private void timer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
if(!updateDBThread.IsAlive)
updateDBThread.Start();
}

Starting from .NET 6 there is a new timer available, the PeriodicTimer. This is a lightweight async-enabled timer, that becomes the perfect tool when overlapping executions should be strictly forbidden. You use this timer by writing an asynchronous method with a loop, and invoking it to start the loop:
private Task _operation;
private CancellationTokenSource _operationCancellation = new();
//...
_operation = StartTimer();
//...
private async Task StartTimer()
{
PeriodicTimer timer = new(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(30));
while (true)
{
await timer.WaitForNextTickAsync(_operationCancellation.Token);
try
{
DoSomething();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.LogError(ex);
}
}
}
Instead of using a CancellationTokenSource, you can also stop the loop by disposing the PeriodicTimer. In this case the await timer.WaitForNextTickAsync() will return false.
It is possible that the DoSomething will be invoked subsequently with smaller interval than 30 seconds, but it's impossible that it will be invoked in overlapping fashion, unless you start accidentally two asynchronous loops.
This timer does not support disabling and reenabling it. If you need this functionality you could look at the third-party Nito.AsyncEx.PauseTokenSource component.
In case you are targeting a .NET version earlier than .NET 6, you could look at this question for an alternative: Run async method regularly with specified interval.

You could use the AutoResetEvent as follows:
// Somewhere else in the code
using System;
using System.Threading;
// In the class or whever appropriate
static AutoResetEvent autoEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void MyWorkerThread()
{
while(1)
{
// Wait for work method to signal.
if(autoEvent.WaitOne(30000, false))
{
// Signalled time to quit
return;
}
else
{
// grab a lock
// do the work
// Whatever...
}
}
}
A slightly "smarter" solution is as follow in pseudo-code:
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
// In the class or whever appropriate
static AutoResetEvent autoEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void MyWorkerThread()
{
Stopwatch stopWatch = new Stopwatch();
TimeSpan Second30 = new TimeSpan(0,0,30);
TimeSpan SecondsZero = new TimeSpan(0);
TimeSpan waitTime = Second30 - SecondsZero;
TimeSpan interval;
while(1)
{
// Wait for work method to signal.
if(autoEvent.WaitOne(waitTime, false))
{
// Signalled time to quit
return;
}
else
{
stopWatch.Start();
// grab a lock
// do the work
// Whatever...
stopwatch.stop();
interval = stopwatch.Elapsed;
if (interval < Seconds30)
{
waitTime = Seconds30 - interval;
}
else
{
waitTime = SecondsZero;
}
}
}
}
Either of these has the advantage that you can shutdown the thread, just by signaling the event.
Edit
I should add, that this code makes the assumption that you only have one of these MyWorkerThreads() running, otherwise they would run concurrently.

I've used a mutex when I've wanted single execution:
private void OnMsgTimer(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs args)
{
// mutex creates a single instance in this application
bool wasMutexCreatedNew = false;
using(Mutex onlyOne = new Mutex(true, GetMutexName(), out wasMutexCreatedNew))
{
if (wasMutexCreatedNew)
{
try
{
//<your code here>
}
finally
{
onlyOne.ReleaseMutex();
}
}
}
}
Sorry I'm so late...You will need to provide the mutex name as part of the GetMutexName() method call.