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'.

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();

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。

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.

.．.同样的论点也适用于这个结构:

lock(typeof(SomeObject))

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;)