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();

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。

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。

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'.

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?

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();