因为如果人们可以获得你的对象实例(即:你的this)指针，那么他们也可以尝试锁定相同的对象。现在他们可能没有意识到您在内部锁定了这个，所以这可能会导致问题(可能是死锁)

除此之外，这也是一种糟糕的做法，因为它锁定了“太多”

例如，你可能有一个成员变量List<int>，你唯一需要锁定的就是这个成员变量。如果你在你的函数中锁定了整个对象，那么其他调用这些函数的东西将被阻塞等待锁定。如果这些函数不需要访问成员列表，则会导致其他代码等待，并毫无理由地降低应用程序的速度。

.．.同样的论点也适用于这个结构:

lock(typeof(SomeObject))

看看MSDN主题线程同步(c#编程指南)

Generally, it is best to avoid locking on a public type, or on object instances beyond the control of your application. For example, lock(this) can be problematic if the instance can be accessed publicly, because code beyond your control may lock on the object as well. This could create deadlock situations where two or more threads wait for the release of the same object. Locking on a public data type, as opposed to an object, can cause problems for the same reason. Locking on literal strings is especially risky because literal strings are interned by the common language runtime (CLR). This means that there is one instance of any given string literal for the entire program, the exact same object represents the literal in all running application domains, on all threads. As a result, a lock placed on a string with the same contents anywhere in the application process locks all instances of that string in the application. As a result, it is best to lock a private or protected member that is not interned. Some classes provide members specifically for locking. The Array type, for example, provides SyncRoot. Many collection types provide a SyncRoot member as well.

因为任何可以看到类实例的代码块也可以锁定该引用。您希望隐藏(封装)锁定对象，以便只有需要引用它的代码才能引用它。关键字this指向当前类实例，因此任何数量的东西都可以引用它，并可以使用它来进行线程同步。

需要明确的是，这很糟糕，因为其他一些代码块可能会使用类实例来锁定，并且可能会阻止您的代码获得及时的锁定，或者可能会产生其他线程同步问题。最好的情况是:没有其他方法使用对您的类的引用来锁定。中间情况:某些东西使用对你的类的引用来锁，这导致了性能问题。最坏的情况:某些东西使用你的类的引用来进行锁，这会导致非常糟糕、非常微妙、非常难以调试的问题。

这里也有一些关于这个的很好的讨论:这是互斥锁的正确使用吗?

在lock语句中使用这是一种糟糕的形式，因为它通常不受您的控制，其他人可能会锁定该对象。

为了正确地计划并行操作，应该特别注意考虑可能的死锁情况，而拥有未知数量的锁入口点则会妨碍这一点。例如，任何具有对象引用的人都可以在对象设计者/创建者不知道的情况下锁定它。这增加了多线程解决方案的复杂性，并可能影响它们的正确性。

私有字段通常是更好的选择，因为编译器会强制对其进行访问限制，并且它会封装锁定机制。使用这种方法会将部分锁定实现暴露给公众，从而违反了封装。同样不清楚的是，您是否将获得此锁，除非它已被记录。即使这样，依靠文档来防止问题也是次优的。

最后，有一个常见的误解，认为lock(this)实际上修改了作为参数传递的对象，并以某种方式使其只读或不可访问。这是错误的。作为参数传递给lock的对象仅仅充当一个键。如果一把锁已经被锁在那把钥匙上了，那就不能锁;否则，允许使用锁。

这就是为什么在lock语句中使用字符串作为键是不好的，因为它们是不可变的，并且可以在应用程序的各个部分之间共享/访问。你应该使用一个私有变量，一个Object实例就可以了。

以运行下面的c#代码为例。

public class Person
{
    public int Age { get; set;  }
    public string Name { get; set; }

    public void LockThis()
    {
        lock (this)
        {
            System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10000);
        }
    }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        var nancy = new Person {Name = "Nancy Drew", Age = 15};
        var a = new Thread(nancy.LockThis);
        a.Start();
        var b = new Thread(Timewarp);
        b.Start(nancy);
        Thread.Sleep(10);
        var anotherNancy = new Person { Name = "Nancy Drew", Age = 50 };
        var c = new Thread(NameChange);
        c.Start(anotherNancy);
        a.Join();
        Console.ReadLine();
    }

    static void Timewarp(object subject)
    {
        var person = subject as Person;
        if (person == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("subject");
        // A lock does not make the object read-only.
        lock (person.Name)
        {
            while (person.Age <= 23)
            {
                // There will be a lock on 'person' due to the LockThis method running in another thread
                if (Monitor.TryEnter(person, 10) == false)
                {
                    Console.WriteLine("'this' person is locked!");
                }
                else Monitor.Exit(person);
                person.Age++;
                if(person.Age == 18)
                {
                    // Changing the 'person.Name' value doesn't change the lock...
                    person.Name = "Nancy Smith";
                }
                Console.WriteLine("{0} is {1} years old.", person.Name, person.Age);
            }
        }
    }

    static void NameChange(object subject)
    {
        var person = subject as Person;
        if (person == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("subject");
        // You should avoid locking on strings, since they are immutable.
        if (Monitor.TryEnter(person.Name, 30) == false)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Failed to obtain lock on 50 year old Nancy, because Timewarp(object) locked on string \"Nancy Drew\".");
        }
        else Monitor.Exit(person.Name);

        if (Monitor.TryEnter("Nancy Drew", 30) == false)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Failed to obtain lock using 'Nancy Drew' literal, locked by 'person.Name' since both are the same object thanks to inlining!");
        }
        else Monitor.Exit("Nancy Drew");
        if (Monitor.TryEnter(person.Name, 10000))
        {
            string oldName = person.Name;
            person.Name = "Nancy Callahan";
            Console.WriteLine("Name changed from '{0}' to '{1}'.", oldName, person.Name);
        }
        else Monitor.Exit(person.Name);
    }
}

控制台输出

'this' person is locked!
Nancy Drew is 16 years old.
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Drew is 17 years old.
Failed to obtain lock on 50 year old Nancy, because Timewarp(object) locked on string "Nancy Drew".
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Smith is 18 years old.
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Smith is 19 years old.
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Smith is 20 years old.
Failed to obtain lock using 'Nancy Drew' literal, locked by 'person.Name' since both are the same object thanks to inlining!
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Smith is 21 years old.
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Smith is 22 years old.
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Smith is 23 years old.
'this' person is locked!
Nancy Smith is 24 years old.
Name changed from 'Nancy Drew' to 'Nancy Callahan'.

抱歉，伙计们，我不同意锁定这个可能会导致僵局的说法。你混淆了两件事:僵局和饥饿。

如果不中断其中一个线程，就无法取消死锁，因此进入死锁后就无法退出 饥饿将在其中一个线程完成其工作后自动结束

这里有一张图可以说明两者的区别。

结论 如果线程饥饿对您来说不是问题，您仍然可以安全地使用lock(this)。你仍然需要记住，当线程使用lock(this)饿死线程时，它将以锁定对象的锁结束，它最终将以永远饥饿结束;)

我知道这是一个旧线程，但因为人们仍然可以查找并依赖它，因此有必要指出lock(typeof(SomeObject))明显比lock(this)差。话虽如此;对Alan指出lock(typeof(SomeObject))是不好的做法表示由衷的赞扬。

System的一个实例。Type是最通用的粗粒度对象之一。至少是System的一个实例。Type对于AppDomain是全局的，. net可以在一个AppDomain中运行多个程序。这意味着，如果两个完全不同的应用程序都试图在System.Type的同一个全局实例上获得同步锁，那么它们可能会对彼此造成潜在的干扰，甚至产生死锁。

因此，lock(这)并不是特别健壮的形式，可能会导致问题，并且由于所引用的所有原因应该总是令人惊讶。然而，像log4net这样广泛使用、相对受人尊敬且明显稳定的代码广泛使用锁(此)模式，尽管我个人更希望看到这种模式发生变化。

但是lock(typeof(SomeObject))打开了一个全新的增强的蠕虫容器。

不管怎样。

如果可以公开访问实例，就会出现问题，因为可能有其他请求正在使用相同的对象实例。最好使用私有/静态变量。

以下是一些更容易遵循的示例代码(IMO):(将在LinqPad中工作，参考以下名称空间:System。Net和System.Threading.Tasks)

需要记住的一点是，lock(x)基本上是语法糖，它所做的就是使用Monitor。输入，然后使用try、catch和finally块调用Monitor.Exit。参见:https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.threading.monitor.enter(备注部分)

或者使用c#锁语句(Visual Basic中的SyncLock语句)， 它将Enter和Exit方法包装在一个try…finally块中。

void Main()
{
    //demonstrates why locking on THIS is BADD! (you should never lock on something that is publicly accessible)
    ClassTest test = new ClassTest();
    lock(test) //locking on the instance of ClassTest
    {
        Console.WriteLine($"CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
        Parallel.Invoke(new Action[]
        {
            () => {
                //this is there to just use up the current main thread. 
                Console.WriteLine($"CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
                },
            //none of these will enter the lock section.
            () => test.DoWorkUsingThisLock(1),//this will dead lock as lock(x) uses Monitor.Enter
            () => test.DoWorkUsingMonitor(2), //this will not dead lock as it uses Montory.TryEnter
        });
    }
}

public class ClassTest
{
    public void DoWorkUsingThisLock(int i)
    {
        Console.WriteLine($"Start ClassTest.DoWorkUsingThisLock {i} CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
        lock(this) //this can be bad if someone has locked on this already, as it will cause it to be deadlocked!
        {
            Console.WriteLine($"Running: ClassTest.DoWorkUsingThisLock {i} CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
            Thread.Sleep(1000);
        }
        Console.WriteLine($"End ClassTest.DoWorkUsingThisLock Done {i}  CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
    }

    public void DoWorkUsingMonitor(int i)
    {
        Console.WriteLine($"Start ClassTest.DoWorkUsingMonitor {i} CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
        if (Monitor.TryEnter(this))
        {
            Console.WriteLine($"Running: ClassTest.DoWorkUsingMonitor {i} CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
            Thread.Sleep(1000);
            Monitor.Exit(this);
        }
        else
        {
            Console.WriteLine($"Skipped lock section!  {i} CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
        }

        Console.WriteLine($"End ClassTest.DoWorkUsingMonitor Done {i} CurrentThread {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
        Console.WriteLine();
    }
}

输出

CurrentThread 15
CurrentThread 15
Start ClassTest.DoWorkUsingMonitor 2 CurrentThread 13
Start ClassTest.DoWorkUsingThisLock 1 CurrentThread 12
Skipped lock section!  2 CurrentThread 13
End ClassTest.DoWorkUsingMonitor Done 2 CurrentThread 13

注意线程#12永远不会因为死锁而结束。

想象一下，你的办公室有一位技术娴熟的秘书，这是部门的共享资源。偶尔，你会因为有任务而冲向他们，只希望你的另一个同事还没有认领他们。通常你只需要等很短的一段时间。

因为关心就是分享，你的经理决定顾客也可以直接使用秘书。但这有一个副作用:当您为该客户工作时，客户甚至可能会认领它们，并且您还需要他们执行部分任务。死锁发生，因为声明不再是层次结构。如果从一开始就不允许客户索赔，这完全可以避免。

lock(this) is bad as we've seen. An outside object might lock on the object and since you don't control who's using the class, anyone can lock on it... Which is the exact example as described above. Again, the solution is to limit exposure of the object. However, if you have a private, protected or internal class you could already control who is locking on your object, because you're sure that you've written your code yourself. So the message here is: don't expose it as public. Also, ensuring that a lock is used in similar scenario's avoids deadlocks.

与此完全相反的是锁定整个应用领域共享的资源——这是最坏的情况。这就像把你的秘书放在外面，让外面的人去认领一样。结果是彻底的混乱——或者就源代码而言:这是一个坏主意;把它扔掉，重新开始。我们怎么做呢?

正如这里大多数人指出的那样，类型在应用领域是共享的。但是我们可以使用更好的东西:字符串。原因是字符串被池化了。换句话说，如果你有两个字符串在一个应用域中有相同的内容，它们有可能有完全相同的指针。由于指针被用作锁键，基本上你得到的是“为未定义的行为做好准备”的同义词。

类似地，你不应该锁定WCF对象HttpContext。目前,线程。当前，单例(一般)等。避免这一切的最简单方法是什么?private [static] object myLock = new object();

如果在共享资源上锁定，则this指针上的锁定可能很糟糕。共享资源可以是一个静态变量，也可以是计算机上的一个文件——即在类的所有用户之间共享的一些东西。原因是，每次实例化类时，this指针将包含对内存中某个位置的不同引用。在一个类的实例中锁定这个和在另一个类的实例中锁定这个是不同的。

请检查这段代码，了解我的意思。在控制台应用程序的主程序中添加以下代码:

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
         TestThreading();
         Console.ReadLine();
    }

    public static void TestThreading()
    {
        Random rand = new Random();
        Thread[] threads = new Thread[10];
        TestLock.balance = 100000;
        for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
        {
            TestLock tl = new TestLock();
            Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(tl.WithdrawAmount));
            threads[i] = t;
        }
        for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
        {
            threads[i].Start();
        }
        Console.Read();
    }

创建一个如下所示的新类。

 class TestLock
{
    public static int balance { get; set; }
    public static readonly Object myLock = new Object();

    public void Withdraw(int amount)
    {
      // Try both locks to see what I mean
      //             lock (this)
       lock (myLock)
        {
            Random rand = new Random();
            if (balance >= amount)
            {
                Console.WriteLine("Balance before Withdrawal :  " + balance);
                Console.WriteLine("Withdraw        : -" + amount);
                balance = balance - amount;
                Console.WriteLine("Balance after Withdrawal  :  " + balance);
            }
            else
            {
                Console.WriteLine("Can't process your transaction, current balance is :  " + balance + " and you tried to withdraw " + amount);
            }
        }

    }
    public void WithdrawAmount()
    {
        Random rand = new Random();
        Withdraw(rand.Next(1, 100) * 100);
    }
}

这里是一个程序的运行锁定这个。

   Balance before Withdrawal :  100000
    Withdraw        : -5600
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  94400
    Balance before Withdrawal :  100000
    Balance before Withdrawal :  100000
    Withdraw        : -5600
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  88800
    Withdraw        : -5600
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  83200
    Balance before Withdrawal :  83200
    Withdraw        : -9100
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  74100
    Balance before Withdrawal :  74100
    Withdraw        : -9100
    Balance before Withdrawal :  74100
    Withdraw        : -9100
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  55900
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  65000
    Balance before Withdrawal :  55900
    Withdraw        : -9100
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  46800
    Balance before Withdrawal :  46800
    Withdraw        : -2800
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  44000
    Balance before Withdrawal :  44000
    Withdraw        : -2800
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  41200
    Balance before Withdrawal :  44000
    Withdraw        : -2800
    Balance after Withdrawal  :  38400

下面是在myLock上锁定程序的运行。

Balance before Withdrawal :  100000
Withdraw        : -6600
Balance after Withdrawal  :  93400
Balance before Withdrawal :  93400
Withdraw        : -6600
Balance after Withdrawal  :  86800
Balance before Withdrawal :  86800
Withdraw        : -200
Balance after Withdrawal  :  86600
Balance before Withdrawal :  86600
Withdraw        : -8500
Balance after Withdrawal  :  78100
Balance before Withdrawal :  78100
Withdraw        : -8500
Balance after Withdrawal  :  69600
Balance before Withdrawal :  69600
Withdraw        : -8500
Balance after Withdrawal  :  61100
Balance before Withdrawal :  61100
Withdraw        : -2200
Balance after Withdrawal  :  58900
Balance before Withdrawal :  58900
Withdraw        : -2200
Balance after Withdrawal  :  56700
Balance before Withdrawal :  56700
Withdraw        : -2200
Balance after Withdrawal  :  54500
Balance before Withdrawal :  54500
Withdraw        : -500
Balance after Withdrawal  :  54000

关于它有一篇非常好的文章http://bytes.com/topic/c-sharp/answers/249277-dont-lock-type-objects，作者是Rico Mariani，他是Microsoft®.NET运行时的性能架构师

摘录:

这里的基本问题是您不拥有类型对象，而您 不知道还有谁能拿到。总的来说，这是一个非常糟糕的主意 依赖于锁定一个不是你创建的对象，也不知道还有谁 可能是存取。这样做会导致僵局。最安全的方法是 只锁定私有对象。

请参考下面的链接，它解释了为什么锁(这)不是一个好主意。

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/threading/managed-threading-best-practices

所以解决方案是添加一个私有对象，例如，lockObject到类中，并将代码区域放在lock语句中，如下所示:

lock (lockObject)
{
...
}

这里有一个更简单的例子(来自这里的问题34)，为什么锁(this)是不好的，并且当你的类的消费者也试图锁定对象时可能会导致死锁。 下面，三个线程中只有一个线程可以继续，其他两个线程处于死锁状态。

class SomeClass { public void SomeMethod(int id) { **lock(this)** { while(true) { Console.WriteLine("SomeClass.SomeMethod #" + id); } } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { SomeClass o = new SomeClass(); lock(o) { for (int threadId = 0; threadId < 3; threadId++) { Thread t = new Thread(() => { o.SomeMethod(threadId); }); t.Start(); } Console.WriteLine(); }

为了解决这个问题，这家伙使用了Thread。TryMonitor(带超时)而不是lock:

班长。TryEnter(temp, millisecondsTimeout, ref lockWasTaken); 如果(lockWasTaken) ｛ doAction (); ｝ 其他的 ｛ 抛出新的异常(" cannot get lock"); ｝

https://blogs.appbeat.io/post/c-how-to-lock-without-deadlocks

你可以建立一个规则，规定一个类可以有锁定'this'或类中代码实例化的任何对象的代码。所以只有不遵循这个模式才会有问题。

如果您想保护自己不受不遵循此模式的代码的影响，那么接受的答案是正确的。但如果遵循这个模式，那就不是问题。

锁的优点是效率高。如果你有一个简单的“值对象”，它只包含一个值。它只是一个包装器，它被实例化了数百万次。通过要求仅为锁定而创建一个私有同步对象，基本上使对象的大小增加了一倍，分配的数量也增加了一倍。当性能很重要时，这是一个优势。

当您不关心分配数量或内存占用时，出于其他答案中指出的原因，避免锁定(这)是可取的。

以下是不建议使用的原因。

短版: 考虑下面的代码片段:

object foo = new Object(); 
object bar = foo; 

lock(foo)
{
  lock(bar){}
}  

这里，foo和bar引用的是导致死锁的同一个对象实例。这是现实中可能发生的事情的简化版本。

长版: 为了根据下面的代码片段更详细地解释它，假设您编写了一个类(在本例中为SomeClass)，并且类的使用者(名为“John”的编码器)希望获得类实例(在本例中为someObject)上的锁。他遇到死锁是因为他在实例someObject上获得了一个锁，在这个锁中他调用了该实例的一个方法(SomeMethod())，该方法在内部获得了同一个实例上的锁。

I could have written the following example with or without Task/Thread and the gist of deadlock still remains the same. To prevent bizarre situation where the main Thread finishes while its children are still running, I used .Wait(). However, in long-running-tasks or situation where a code-snippet executes more frequently, you would definitely see the same behavior. Although John applied a bad practice of using an instance of a class as a lock-object, but we (as the developer of a classlibrary SomeClass) should deter such situation simple by not using this as a lock-object in our class. Instead, we should declare a simple private field and use that as our lock-object. using System; using System.Threading; using System.Threading.Tasks; class SomeClass { public void SomeMethod() { //NOTE: Locks over an object that is already locked by the caller. // Hence, the following code-block never executes. lock (this) { Console.WriteLine("Hi"); } } } public class Program { public static void Main() { SomeClass o = new SomeClass(); lock (o) { Task.Run(() => o.SomeMethod()).Wait(); } Console.WriteLine("Finish"); } }