MSDN文档是这么说的
public class SomeObject
{
public void SomeOperation()
{
lock(this)
{
//Access instance variables
}
}
}
是“如果实例可以公开访问，则会出现问题”。我想知道为什么?这是因为锁持有的时间比需要的时间长吗?还是有更阴险的原因?
当前回答
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。
其他回答
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。
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'.
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。
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?
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
