我想根据所积累的意见补充几点看法。

Thread.stop() will stop a thread if the security manager allows it. Thread.stop() is dangerous. Having said that, if you are working in a JEE environment and you have no control over the code being called, it may be necessary; see Why is Thread.stop deprecated? You should never stop stop a container worker thread. If you want to run code that tends to hang, (carefully) start a new daemon thread and monitor it, killing if necessary. stop() creates a new ThreadDeathError error on the calling thread and then throws that error on the target thread. Therefore, the stack trace is generally worthless. In JRE 6, stop() checks with the security manager and then calls stop1() that calls stop0(). stop0() is native code. As of Java 13 Thread.stop() has not been removed (yet), but Thread.stop(Throwable) was removed in Java 11. (mailing list, JDK-8204243)

一种方法是设置一个类变量并将其用作哨兵。

Class Outer {
    public static volatile flag = true;

    Outer() {
        new Test().start();
    }
    class Test extends Thread {

        public void run() {
            while (Outer.flag) {
                //do stuff here
            }
        }
    }

}

设置一个外部类变量，如上面例子中的flag = true。将其设置为false以“杀死”线程。

你有办法做到这一点。但如果你不得不使用它，要么你是一个糟糕的程序员，要么你使用的是一个糟糕的程序员编写的代码。所以，你应该考虑停止成为一个糟糕的程序员或停止使用这些糟糕的代码。 这种解决方案只适用于别无选择的情况。

Thread f = <A thread to be stopped>
Method m = Thread.class.getDeclaredMethod( "stop0" , new Class[]{Object.class} );
m.setAccessible( true );
m.invoke( f , new ThreadDeath() );

我想根据所积累的意见补充几点看法。

Thread.stop() will stop a thread if the security manager allows it. Thread.stop() is dangerous. Having said that, if you are working in a JEE environment and you have no control over the code being called, it may be necessary; see Why is Thread.stop deprecated? You should never stop stop a container worker thread. If you want to run code that tends to hang, (carefully) start a new daemon thread and monitor it, killing if necessary. stop() creates a new ThreadDeathError error on the calling thread and then throws that error on the target thread. Therefore, the stack trace is generally worthless. In JRE 6, stop() checks with the security manager and then calls stop1() that calls stop0(). stop0() is native code. As of Java 13 Thread.stop() has not been removed (yet), but Thread.stop(Throwable) was removed in Java 11. (mailing list, JDK-8204243)

There is of course the case where you are running some kind of not-completely-trusted code. (I personally have this by allowing uploaded scripts to execute in my Java environment. Yes, there are security alarm bell ringing everywhere, but it's part of the application.) In this unfortunate instance you first of all are merely being hopeful by asking script writers to respect some kind of boolean run/don't-run signal. Your only decent fail safe is to call the stop method on the thread if, say, it runs longer than some timeout.

但是，这只是“体面的”，而不是绝对的，因为代码可以捕获ThreadDeath错误(或您显式抛出的任何异常)，而不是像一个绅士线程应该做的那样重新抛出它。所以，AFAIA的底线是没有绝对的故障保险。

这里有一些关于这个主题的好读物:

如何处理InterruptedException?

干净地关闭线程