How to timeout a thread

Consider using an instance of ExecutorService. Both invokeAll() and invokeAny() methods are available with a timeout parameter.

The current thread will block until the method completes (not sure if this is desirable) either because the task(s) completed normally or the timeout was reached. You can inspect the returned Future(s) to determine what happened.

Assuming the thread code is out of your control:

From the Java documentation mentioned above:

What if a thread doesn't respond to Thread.interrupt?

In some cases, you can use application specific tricks. For example, if a thread is waiting on a known socket, you can close the socket to cause the thread to return immediately. Unfortunately, there really isn't any technique that works in general. It should be noted that in all situations where a waiting thread doesn't respond to Thread.interrupt, it wouldn't respond to Thread.stop either. Such cases include deliberate denial-of-service attacks, and I/O operations for which thread.stop and thread.interrupt do not work properly.

Bottom Line:

Make sure all threads can be interrupted, or else you need specific knowledge of the thread - like having a flag to set. Maybe you can require that the task be given to you along with the code needed to stop it - define an interface with a stop() method. You can also warn when you failed to stop a task.

There isn't a 100% reliable way to do this for any old task. The task has to be written with this ability in mind.

Core Java libraries like ExecutorService cancel asynchronous tasks with interrupt() calls on the worker thread. So, for example, if the task contains some sort of loop, you should be checking its interrupt status on each iteration. If the task is doing I/O operations, they should be interruptible too—and setting that up can be tricky. In any case, keep in mind that code has to actively check for interrupts; setting an interrupt doesn't necessarily do anything.

Of course, if your task is some simple loop, you can just check the current time at each iteration and give up when a specified timeout has elapsed. A worker thread isn't needed in that case.

Indeed rather use ExecutorService instead of Timer, here's an SSCCE:

package com.stackoverflow.q2275443;

import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException;

public class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
        Future<String> future = executor.submit(new Task());

        try {
            System.out.println("Started..");
            System.out.println(future.get(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS));
            System.out.println("Finished!");
        } catch (TimeoutException e) {
            future.cancel(true);
            System.out.println("Terminated!");
        }

        executor.shutdownNow();
    }
}

class Task implements Callable<String> {
    @Override
    public String call() throws Exception {
        Thread.sleep(4000); // Just to demo a long running task of 4 seconds.
        return "Ready!";
    }
}

Play a bit with the timeout argument in Future#get() method, e.g. increase it to 5 and you'll see that the thread finishes. You can intercept the timeout in the catch (TimeoutException e) block.

Update: to clarify a conceptual misunderstanding, the sleep() is not required. It is just used for SSCCE/demonstration purposes. Just do your long running task right there in place of sleep(). Inside your long running task, you should be checking if the thread is not interrupted as follows:

while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
    // Do your long running task here.
}