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?
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
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.
其他回答
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.
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。
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