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。

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。

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'.

.．.同样的论点也适用于这个结构:

lock(typeof(SomeObject))

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。