Develop Reference

How to estimate method execution time?

I have requirement to cancel method execution if it takes the more than two seconds to complete and restart it on another thread.
So, is there any way/call back mechanism/HACK, I can make method inform me that it crossed 2 seconds time limit?

check if network drive exists with timeout in c#
https://web.archive.org/web/20140222210133/http://kossovsky.net/index.php/2009/07/csharp-how-to-limit-method-execution-time
Async Pattern:
public static T SafeLimex<T>(Func<T> F, int Timeout, out bool Completed)
{
var iar = F.BeginInvoke(null, new object());
if (iar.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(Timeout))
{
Completed = true;
return F.EndInvoke(iar);
}
F.EndInvoke(iar); //not calling EndInvoke will result in a memory leak
Completed = false;
return default(T);
}

You should create System.Threading.Timer on two seconds, and run your method in another thread and wait for callback from it, if method completes before timer runs you should dispose timer, otherwise you should abort thread in which you method are executing. This is pretty simple for example
using (new Timer(BreakFunction, true, TimeSpan.FromMinutes(2), Timeout.Infinite))
{
//TODO:here you should create another thread that will run your method
}
In BreakFunction you should abort thread that runs your methods

It would be good if you can find it. I've been looking for it too.
What I usually do is start the method in another Thread, and start a Timer with 2 seconds in this case. The first time it raises the event, just do:
if (a.IsAlive)
{
a.Abort();
}
Two important things:
The Thread declared should be visible by the method that handles the timer
When calling Abort(), it raises ThreadAbortException, so you should correctly handle it in the method.

When implementing time-constrained methods, should I abort the worker thread or let it run its course?

I'm currently writing a web services based front-end to an existing application. To do that, I'm using the WCF LOB Adapter SDK, which allows one to create custom WCF bindings that expose external data and operations as web services.
The SDK provides a few interfaces to implement, and some of their methods are time-constrained: the implementation is expected to complete its work within a specified timespan or throw a TimeoutException.
Investigations led me to the question "Implement C# Generic Timeout", which wisely advises to use a worker thread. Armed with that knowledge, I can write:
public MetadataRetrievalNode[] Browse(string nodeId, int childStartIndex,
int maxChildNodes, TimeSpan timeout)
{
Func<MetadataRetrievalNode[]> work = () => {
// Return computed metadata...
};
IAsyncResult result = work.BeginInvoke(null, null);
if (result.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(timeout)) {
return work.EndInvoke(result);
} else {
throw new TimeoutException();
}
}
However, the consensus is not clear about what to do with the worker thread if it times out. One can just forget about it, like the code above does, or one can abort it:
public MetadataRetrievalNode[] Browse(string nodeId, int childStartIndex,
int maxChildNodes, TimeSpan timeout)
{
Thread workerThread = null;
Func<MetadataRetrievalNode[]> work = () => {
workerThread = Thread.CurrentThread;
// Return computed metadata...
};
IAsyncResult result = work.BeginInvoke(null, null);
if (result.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(timeout)) {
return work.EndInvoke(result);
} else {
workerThread.Abort();
throw new TimeoutException();
}
}
Now, aborting a thread is widely considered as wrong. It breaks work in progress, leaks resources, messes with locking and does not even guarantee the thread will actually stop running. That said, HttpResponse.Redirect() aborts a thread every time it's called, and IIS seems to be perfectly happy with that. Maybe it's prepared to deal with it somehow. My external application probably isn't.
On the other hand, if I let the worker thread run its course, apart from the resource contention increase (less available threads in the pool), wouldn't memory be leaked anyway, because work.EndInvoke() never gets called? More specifically, wouldn't the MetadataRetrievalNode[] array returned by work remain around forever?
Is this only a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, or is there a way not to abort the worker thread and still reclaim the memory used by BeginInvoke()?

Well, first off Thread.Abort is not nearly as bad as it used it to be. There were several improvements made to the CLR in 2.0 that fixed several of the major issues with aborting threads. It is still bad, mind you, so avoiding it is the best course of action. If you must resort to aborting threads then at the very least you should consider tearing down the application domain from where the abort originated. That is going to be incredibly invasive in most scenarios and would not resolve the possible corruption of unmanaged resources.
Aside from that, aborting in this case is going to have other implications. The most important being that you are attempting to abort a ThreadPool thread. I am really not sure what the end result of that would be and it could be different depending on which version of the framework is in play.
The best course of action is to have your Func<MetadataRetrievalNode[]> delegate poll a variable at safe points to see if it should terminate execution on its own.
public MetadataRetrievalNode[] Browse(string nodeId, int childStartIndex, int maxChildNodes, TimeSpan timeout)
{
bool terminate = false;
Func<MetadataRetrievalNode[]> work =
() =>
{
// Do some work.
Thread.MemoryBarrier(); // Ensure a fresh read of the terminate variable.
if (terminate) throw new InvalidOperationException();
// Do some work.
Thread.MemoryBarrier(); // Ensure a fresh read of the terminate variable.
if (terminate) throw new InvalidOperationException();
// Return computed metadata...
};
IAsyncResult result = work.BeginInvoke(null, null);
terminate = !result.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(timeout);
return work.EndInvoke(result); // This blocks until the delegate completes.
}
The tricky part is how to deal with blocking calls inside your delegate. Obviously, you cannot check the terminate flag if the delegate is in the middle of a blocking call. But, assuming the blocking call is initiated from one of the canned BCL waiting mechansisms (WaitHandle.WaitOne, Monitor.Wait, etc.) then you could use Thread.Interrupt to "poke" it and that should immediately unblock it.

The answer depends on the type of work your worker thread is performing. My guess is it's working with external resources like a data connection. Thread.Abort() is indeed evil in any case of threads working with hooks to unmanaged resources, no matter how well-wrapped.
Basically, you want your service to give up if it times out. At this point, theoretically, the caller no longer cares how long the thread's going to take; it only cares that it's "too long", and should move on. Barring a bug in the worker thread's running method, it WILL end eventually; the caller just no longer cares when because it's not waiting any longer.
Now, if the reason the thread timed out is because it's caught in an infinite loop, or is told to wait forever on some other operation like a service call, then you have a problem that you should fix, but the fix is not to kill the thread. That would be analagous to sending your kid into a grocery store to buy bread while you wait in the car. If your kid keeps spending 15 minutes in the store when you think it should take 5, you eventually get curious, go in and find out what they're doing. If it's not what you thought they should be doing, like they've spent all the time looking at pots & pans, you "correct" their behavior for future occasions. If you go in and see your kid standing in a long checkout line, then you just start waiting longer. In neither of these cases should you press the button that detonates the explosive vest they're wearing; that just makes a big mess that will likely interfere with the next kid's ability to do the same errand later.

C# threading pattern that will let me flush

I have a class that implements the Begin/End Invocation pattern where I initially used ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem() to thread my work. The work done on the thread doesn't loop but does takes a bit of time to process so the work itself is not easily stopped.
I now have the side effect where someone using my class is calling the Begin (with callback) a ton of times to do a lot of processing so ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem is creating a ton of threads to do the processing. That in itself isn't bad but there are instances where they want to abandon the processing and start a new process but they are forced to wait for their first request to finish.
Since ThreadPool.QueueUseWorkItem() doesn't allow me to cancel the threads I am trying to come up with a better way to queue up the work and maybe use an explicit FlushQueue() method in my class to allow the caller to abandon work in my queue.
Anyone have any suggestion on a threading pattern that fits my needs?
Edit: I'm currently targeting the 2.0 framework. I'm currently thinking that a Consumer/Producer queue might work. Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of flushing the queue?
Edit 2 Problem Clarification:
Since I'm using the Begin/End pattern in my class every time the caller uses the Begin with callback I create a whole new thread on the thread pool. This call does a very small amount of processing and is not where I want to cancel. It's the uncompleted jobs in the queue I wish to stop.
The fact that the ThreadPool will create 250 threads per processor by default means if you ask the ThreadPool to queue a large amount of items with QueueUserWorkItem() you end up creating a huge amount of concurrent threads that you have no way of stopping.
The caller is able to push the CPU to 100% with not only the work but the creation of the work because of the way I queued the threads.
I was thinking by using the Producer/Consumer pattern I could queue these threads into my own queue that would allow me to moderate how many threads I create to avoid the CPU spike creating all the concurrent threads. And that I might be able to allow the caller of my class to flush all the jobs in the queue when they are abandoning the requests.
I am currently trying to implement this myself but figured SO was a good place to have someone say look at this code or you won't be able to flush because of this or flushing isn't the right term you mean this.

EDIT My answer does not apply since OP is using 2.0. Leaving up and switching to CW for anyone who reads this question and using 4.0
If you are using C# 4.0, or can take a depedency on one of the earlier version of the parallel frameworks, you can use their built-in cancellation support. It's not as easy as cancelling a thread but the framework is much more reliable (cancelling a thread is very attractive but also very dangerous).
Reed did an excellent article on this you should take a look at
http://reedcopsey.com/2010/02/17/parallelism-in-net-part-10-cancellation-in-plinq-and-the-parallel-class/

A method I've used in the past, though it's certainly not a best practice is to dedicate a class instance to each thread, and have an abort flag on the class. Then create a ThrowIfAborting method on the class that is called periodically from the thread (particularly if the thread's running a loop, just call it every iteration). If the flag has been set, ThrowIfAborting will simply throw an exception, which is caught in the main method for the thread. Just make sure to clean up your resources as you're aborting.

You could extend the Begin/End pattern to become the Begin/Cancel/End pattern. The Cancel method could set a cancel flag that the worker thread polls periodically. When the worker thread detects a cancel request, it can stop its work, clean-up resources as needed, and report that the operation was canceled as part of the End arguments.

I've solved what I believe to be your exact problem by using a wrapper class around 1+ BackgroundWorker instances.
Unfortunately, I'm not able to post my entire class, but here's the basic concept along with it's limitations.
Usage:
You simply create an instance and call RunOrReplace(...) when you want to cancel your old worker and start a new one. If the old worker was busy, it is asked to cancel and then another worker is used to immediately execute your request.
public class BackgroundWorkerReplaceable : IDisposable
{
BackgroupWorker activeWorker = null;
object activeWorkerSyncRoot = new object();
List<BackgroupWorker> workerPool = new List<BackgroupWorker>();
DoWorkEventHandler doWork;
RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler runWorkerCompleted;
public bool IsBusy
{
get { return activeWorker != null ? activeWorker.IsBusy; : false }
}
public BackgroundWorkerReplaceable(DoWorkEventHandler doWork, RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler runWorkerCompleted)
{
this.doWork = doWork;
this.runWorkerCompleted = runWorkerCompleted;
ResetActiveWorker();
}
public void RunOrReplace(Object param, ...) // Overloads could include ProgressChangedEventHandler and other stuff
{
try
{
lock(activeWorkerSyncRoot)
{
if(activeWorker.IsBusy)
{
ResetActiveWorker();
}
// This works because if IsBusy was false above, there is no way for it to become true without another thread obtaining a lock
if(!activeWorker.IsBusy)
{
// Optionally handle ProgressChangedEventHandler and other features (under the lock!)
// Work on this new param
activeWorker.RunWorkerAsync(param);
}
else
{ // This should never happen since we create new workers when there's none available!
throw new LogicException(...); // assert or similar
}
}
}
catch(...) // InvalidOperationException and Exception
{ // In my experience, it's safe to just show the user an error and ignore these, but that's going to depend on what you use this for and where you want the exception handling to be
}
}
public void Cancel()
{
ResetActiveWorker();
}
public void Dispose()
{ // You should implement a proper Dispose/Finalizer pattern
if(activeWorker != null)
{
activeWorker.CancelAsync();
}
foreach(BackgroundWorker worker in workerPool)
{
worker.CancelAsync();
worker.Dispose();
// perhaps use a for loop instead so you can set worker to null? This might help the GC, but it's probably not needed
}
}
void ResetActiveWorker()
{
lock(activeWorkerSyncRoot)
{
if(activeWorker == null)
{
activeWorker = GetAvailableWorker();
}
else if(activeWorker.IsBusy)
{ // Current worker is busy - issue a cancel and set another active worker
activeWorker.CancelAsync(); // Make sure WorkerSupportsCancellation must be set to true [Link9372]
// Optionally handle ProgressEventHandler -=
activeWorker = GetAvailableWorker(); // Ensure that the activeWorker is available
}
//else - do nothing, activeWorker is already ready for work!
}
}
BackgroupdWorker GetAvailableWorker()
{
// Loop through workerPool and return a worker if IsBusy is false
// if the loop exits without returning...
if(activeWorker != null)
{
workerPool.Add(activeWorker); // Save the old worker for possible future use
}
return GenerateNewWorker();
}
BackgroundWorker GenerateNewWorker()
{
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true; // [Link9372]
//worker.WorkerReportsProgress
worker.DoWork += doWork;
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += runWorkerCompleted;
// Other stuff
return worker;
}
} // class
Pro/Con:
This has the benefit of having a very low delay in starting your new execution, since new threads don't have to wait for old ones to finish.
This comes at the cost of a theoretical never-ending growth of BackgroundWorker objects that never get GC'd. However, in practice the code below attempts to recycle old workers so you shouldn't normally encounter a large pool of ideal threads. If you are worried about this because of how you plan to use this class, you could implement a Timer which fires a CleanUpExcessWorkers(...) method, or have ResetActiveWorker() do this cleanup (at the cost of a longer RunOrReplace(...) delay).
The main cost from using this is precisely why it's beneficial - it doesn't wait for the previous thread to exit, so for example, if DoWork is performing a database call and you execute RunOrReplace(...) 10 times in rapid succession, the database call might not be immediately canceled when the thread is - so you'll have 10 queries running, making all of them slow! This generally tends to work fine with Oracle, causing only minor delays, but I do not have experiences with other databases (to speed up the cleanup, I have the canceled worker tell Oracle to cancel the command). Proper use of the EventArgs described below mostly solves this.
Another minor cost is that whatever code this BackgroundWorker is performing must be compatible with this concept - it must be able to safely recover from being canceled. The DoWorkEventArgs and RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs have a Cancel/Cancelled property which you should use. For example, if you do Database calls in the DoWork method (mainly what I use this class for), you need to make sure you periodically check these properties and take perform the appropriate clean-up.

How to ensure order of async operation calls?

[This appears to be a loooong question but I have tried to make it as clear as possible. Please have patience and help me...]
I have written a test class which supports an Async operation. That operation does nothing but reports 4 numbers:
class AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations
{
AsyncOperation asyncOp;
bool isBusy;
void NotifyStarted () {
isBusy = true;
Started (this, new EventArgs ());
}
void NotifyStopped () {
isBusy = false;
Stopped (this, new EventArgs ());
}
public void Start () {
if (isBusy)
throw new InvalidOperationException ("Already working you moron...");
asyncOp = AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation (null);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem (new WaitCallback (StartOperation));
}
public event EventHandler Started = delegate { };
public event EventHandler Stopped = delegate { };
public event EventHandler<NewNumberEventArgs> NewNumber = delegate { };
private void StartOperation (object state) {
asyncOp.Post (args => NotifyStarted (), null);
for (int i = 1; i < 5; i++)
asyncOp.Post (args => NewNumber (this, args as NewNumberEventArgs), new NewNumberEventArgs (i));
asyncOp.Post (args => NotifyStopped (), null);
}
}
class NewNumberEventArgs: EventArgs
{
public int Num { get; private set; }
public NewNumberEventArgs (int num) {
Num = num;
}
}
Then I wrote 2 test programs; one as console app and another as windows form app. Windows form app works as expected when I call Start repeatedly:
But console app has hard time ensuring the order:
Since I am working on class library, I have to ensure that my library works correctly in all app models (Haven't tested in ASP.NET app yet). So I have following questions:
I have tested enough times and it appears to be working but is it OK to assume above code will always work in windows form app?
Whats the reason it (order) doesn't work correctly in console app? How can I fix it?
Not much experienced with ASP.NET. Will the order work in ASP.NET app?
[EDIT: Test stubs can be seen here if that helps.]

Unless I am missing something then given the code above I believe there is no way of guaranteeing the order of execution. I have never used the AsyncOperation and AsyncOperationManager class but I looked in reflector and as could be assumed AsyncOperation.Post uses the thread pool to execute the given code asynchronously.
This means that in the example you have provided 4 tasks will be queued to the thread pool synchronously in very quick succession. The thread pool will then dequeue the tasks in FIFO order (first in first out) but it's entirely possible for one of later threads to be scheduled before an earlier one or one of the later threads to complete before an earlier thread has completed its work.
Therefore given what you have there is no way to control the order in the way you desire. There are ways to do this, a good place to look is this article on MSDN.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd419664.aspx

I use a Queue you can then Enqueue stuff and Dequeue stuff in the correct order. This solved this problem for me.

The documentation for AsyncOperation.Post states:
Console applications do not synchronize the execution of Post calls. This can cause ProgressChanged events to be raised out of order. If you wish to have serialized execution of Post calls, implement and install a System.Threading.SynchronizationContext class.
I think this is the exact behavior you’re seeing. Basically, if the code that wants to subscribe to notifications from your asynchronous event wants to receive the updates in order, it must ensure that there is a synchronization context installed and that your AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation() call is run inside of that context. If the code consuming the asynchronous events doesn’t care about receiving them in the correct order, it simply needs to avoid installing a synchronization context which will result in the “default” context being used (which just queues calls directly to the threadpool which may execute them in any order it wants to).
In the GUI version of your application, if you call your API from a UI thread, you will automatically have a synchronization context. This context is wired up to use the UI’s message queueing system which guarantees that posted messages are processed in order and serially (i.e., not concurrently).
In a Console application, unless if you manually install your own synchronization context, you will be using the default, non-synchronizing threadpool version. I am not exactly sure, but I don’t think that .net makes installing a serializing synchronization context very easy to do. I just use Nito.AsyncEx.AsyncContext from the Nito.AsyncEx nuget package to do that for me. Basically, if you call Nito.AsyncEx.AsyncContext.Run(MyMethod), it will capture the current thread and run an event loop with MyMethod as the first “handler” in that event loop. If MyMethod calls something that creates an AsyncOperation, that operation increments an “ongoing operations” counter and that loop will continue until the operation is completed via AsyncOperation.PostOperationCompleted or AsyncOperation.OperationCompleted. Just like the synchronization context provided by a UI thread, AsyncContext will queue posts from AsyncOperation.Post() in the order it receives them and run them serially in its event loop.
Here is an example of how to use AsyncContext with your demo asynchronous operation:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting SynchronizationContext");
Nito.AsyncEx.AsyncContext.Run(Run);
Console.WriteLine("SynchronizationContext finished");
}
// This method is run like it is a UI callback. I.e., it has a
// single-threaded event-loop-based synchronization context which
// processes asynchronous callbacks.
static Task Run()
{
var remainingTasks = new Queue<Action>();
Action startNextTask = () =>
{
if (remainingTasks.Any())
remainingTasks.Dequeue()();
};
foreach (var i in Enumerable.Range(0, 4))
{
remainingTasks.Enqueue(
() =>
{
var demoOperation = new AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations();
demoOperation.Started += (sender, e) => Console.WriteLine("Started");
demoOperation.NewNumber += (sender, e) => Console.WriteLine($"Received number {e.Num}");
demoOperation.Stopped += (sender, e) =>
{
// The AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperation has a bug where it fails to call
// AsyncOperation.OperationCompleted(). Do that for it. If we don’t,
// the AsyncContext will never exit because there are outstanding unfinished
// asynchronous operations.
((AsyncOperation)typeof(AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations).GetField("asyncOp", BindingFlags.NonPublic|BindingFlags.Instance).GetValue(demoOperation)).OperationCompleted();
Console.WriteLine("Stopped");
// Start the next task.
startNextTask();
};
demoOperation.Start();
});
}
// Start the first one.
startNextTask();
// AsyncContext requires us to return a Task because that is its
// normal use case.
return Nito.AsyncEx.TaskConstants.Completed;
}
}
With output:
Starting SynchronizationContext
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
Started
Received number 1
Received number 2
Received number 3
Received number 4
Stopped
SynchronizationContext finished
Note that in my example code I work around a bug in AsyncDemoUsingAsyncOperations which you should probably fix: when your operation stops, you never call AsyncOperation.OperationCompleted or AsyncOperation.PostOperationCompleted. This causes AsyncContext.Run() to hang forever because it is waiting for the outstanding operations to complete. You should make sure that your asynchronous operations complete—even in error cases. Otherwise you might run into similar issues elsewhere.
Also, my demo code, to imitate the output you showed in the winforms and console example, waits for each operation to finish before starting the next one. That kind of defeats the point of asynchronous coding. You can probably tell that my code could be greatly simplified by starting all four tasks at once. Each individual task would receive its callbacks in the correct order, but they would all make progress concurrently.
Recommendation
Because of how AsyncOperation seems to work and how it is intended to be used, it is the responsibility of the caller of an asynchronous API that uses this pattern to decide if it wants to receive events in order or not. If you are going to use AsyncOperation, you should document that the asynchronous events will only be received in order by the caller if the caller has a synchronization context that enforces serialization and suggest that the caller call your API on either a UI thread or in something like AsyncContext.Run(). If you try to use synchronization primitives and whatnot inside of the delegate you call with AsyncOperation.Post(), you could end up putting threadpool threads in a sleeping state which is a bad thing when considering performance and is completely redundant/wasteful when the caller of your API has properly set up a synchronization context already. This also enables the caller to decide that, if it is fine with receiving things out of order, that it is willing to process events concurrently and out of order. That may even enable speedup depending on what you’re doing. Or you might even decide to put something like a sequence number in your NewNumberEventArgs in case the caller wants both concurrency and still needs to be able to assemble the events into order at some point.

Pausing a method for set # of milliseconds

I need to do a sort of "timeout" or pause in my method for 10 seconds (10000 milliseconds), but I'm not sure if the following would work as i do not have multi-threading.
Thread.Sleep(10000);
I will try to use that current code, but I would appreciate if someone could explain the best and correct way of doing this, especially if the above code does not work properly. Thanks!
UPDATE: This program is actually a console application that in the function in question is doing many HTTPWebRequests to one server, so I wish to delay them for a specified amount of milliseconds. Thus, no callback is required - all that is needed is an "unconditional pause" - basically just the whole thing stops for 10 seconds and then keeps going. I'm pleased that C# still considers this as a thread, so Thread.Sleep(...) would work. Thanks everybody!

You may not have multi-threading, but you're still executing within a thread: all code executes in a thread.
Calling Thread.Sleep will indeed pause the current thread. Do you really want it to unconditionally pause for 10 seconds, or do you want to be able to be "woken up" by something else happening? If you're only actually using one thread, calling Sleep may well be the best way forward, but it will depend on the situation.
In particular, if you're writing a GUI app you don't want to use Thread.Sleep from the UI thread, as otherwise your whole app will become unresponsive for 10 seconds.
If you could give more information about your application, that would help us to advise you better.

Thread.Sleep is fine, and AFAIK the proper way. Even if you are not Multithreaded: There is always at least one Thread, and if you send that to sleep, it sleeps.
Another (bad) way is a spinlock, something like:
// Do never ever use this
private void DoNothing(){ }
private void KillCPU()
{
DateTime target = DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(10);
while(DateTime.Now < target) DoNothing();
DoStuffAfterWaiting10Seconds();
}
This is sadly still being used by people and while it will halt your program for 10 seconds, it will run at 100% CPU Utilization (Well, on Multi-Core systems it's one core).

That will indeed pause the executing thread/method for 10 seconds. Are you seeing a specific problem?
Note that you shouldn't Sleep the UI thread - it would be better to do a callback instead.
Note also that there are other ways of blocking a thread that allow simpler access to get it going again (if you find it is OK after 2s); such as Monitor.Wait(obj, 10000) (allowing another thread to Pulse if needed to wake it up):
static void Main() {
object lockObj = new object();
lock (lockObj) {
new Thread(GetInput).Start(lockObj);
Monitor.Wait(lockObj, 10000);
}
Console.WriteLine("Main exiting");
}
static void GetInput(object state) {
Console.WriteLine("press return...");
string s = Console.ReadLine();
lock (state) {
Monitor.Pulse(state);
}
Console.WriteLine("GetInput exiting");
}
You can do this with Thread.Interrupt too, but IMO that is messier.

You could use a separate thread to do it:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
delegate(object state)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("done");
});
But, if this is a Windows Forms app, you will need to invoke the code after the delay from the Gui thread (this article, for example: How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?).
[Edit] Just saw your update. If it's a console app, then this will work. But if you haven't used multiple threads so far, then you need to be aware that this code will be executed in a different thread, which means you will have to take care about thread synchronization issues.
If you don't need background workers, stick to "keeping it simple".

Here is a pause class that will pause for the desired milliseconds and wont consume your CPU resources.
public class PauseClass
{
//(C) Michael Roberg
//Please feel free to distribute this class but include my credentials.
System.Timers.Timer pauseTimer = null;
public void BreakPause()
{
if (pauseTimer != null)
{
pauseTimer.Stop();
pauseTimer.Enabled = false;
}
}
public bool Pause(int miliseconds)
{
ThreadPriority CurrentPriority = Thread.CurrentThread.Priority;
if (miliseconds > 0)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
pauseTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
pauseTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(pauseTimer_Elapsed);
pauseTimer.Interval = miliseconds;
pauseTimer.Enabled = true;
while (pauseTimer.Enabled)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
Application.DoEvents();
//pausThread.Sleep(1);
}
pauseTimer.Elapsed -= new ElapsedEventHandler(pauseTimer_Elapsed);
}
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = CurrentPriority;
return true;
}
private void pauseTimer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
pauseTimer.Enabled = false;
}
}

Yes, that works just fine.
You don't have to have multiple threads to make use of some of the methods in the Thread class. You always have at least one thread.

For a timeout, you should have a static volatile boolean isRunning class field. When the new thread starts, the isRunning must become true, and at the end must become false.
The main thread should have a method that loops for the isRunning during the timeout you define. When the timeout ends, you should implement the logic. But, never use the abort thread method.
A pause... there isn't a straightforward solution. It depends on what you are doing inside the thread. However, you could look at Monitor.Wait.

If you can have an async method, you can do something like to pause the function at a certain location. Once pause is set false it will continue executing the rest of the code in the method. Since this is an async method and delay is async too UI execution wouldn't be affected.
* Please note that asyn is supported only in .net 4.5 and higher.
bool pause = true;
void async foo()
{
//some code
while (pause)
{
await Task.Delay(100);
}
//some code
}