这么简单的问题有这么多答案。稍微改变一下这里是我对这个问题的解决方案。

Creating a Mutex can be troublesome because the JIT-er only sees you using it for a small portion of your code and wants to mark it as ready for garbage collection. It pretty much wants to out-smart you thinking you are not going to be using that Mutex for that long. In reality you want to hang onto this Mutex for as long as your application is running. The best way to tell the garbage collector to leave you Mutex alone is to tell it to keep it alive though out the different generations of garage collection. Example:

var m = new Mutex(...);
...
GC.KeepAlive(m);

我从这个网页上获得了灵感:http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc/SingleInstance.html

这是一篇关于互斥锁解决方案的很好的文章。本文描述的方法有两个优点。

首先，它不需要依赖于Microsoft。VisualBasic组装。如果我的项目已经依赖于该程序集，我可能会建议使用另一个答案中显示的方法。但事实上，我不使用微软。VisualBasic程序集，我宁愿不向项目添加不必要的依赖项。

其次，本文将展示当用户试图启动另一个实例时，如何将应用程序的现有实例显示到前台。这是这里描述的其他互斥锁解决方案没有解决的问题。

更新

截至2014年8月1日，我上面链接的文章仍然活跃，但博客已经有一段时间没有更新了。这让我担心，它最终可能会消失，随之而来的是所倡导的解决方案。我在这里复制这篇文章的内容以供后人参考。这些文字仅属于Sanity Free Coding的博客所有者。

Today I wanted to refactor some code that prohibited my application from running multiple instances of itself. Previously I had use System.Diagnostics.Process to search for an instance of my myapp.exe in the process list. While this works, it brings on a lot of overhead, and I wanted something cleaner. Knowing that I could use a mutex for this (but never having done it before) I set out to cut down my code and simplify my life. In the class of my application main I created a static named Mutex:

static class Program
{
    static Mutex mutex = new Mutex(true, "{8F6F0AC4-B9A1-45fd-A8CF-72F04E6BDE8F}");
    [STAThread]
    ...
}

Having a named mutex allows us to stack synchronization across multiple threads and processes which is just the magic I'm looking for. Mutex.WaitOne has an overload that specifies an amount of time for us to wait. Since we're not actually wanting to synchronizing our code (more just check if it is currently in use) we use the overload with two parameters: Mutex.WaitOne(Timespan timeout, bool exitContext). Wait one returns true if it is able to enter, and false if it wasn't. In this case, we don't want to wait at all; If our mutex is being used, skip it, and move on, so we pass in TimeSpan.Zero (wait 0 milliseconds), and set the exitContext to true so we can exit the synchronization context before we try to aquire a lock on it. Using this, we wrap our Application.Run code inside something like this:

static class Program
{
    static Mutex mutex = new Mutex(true, "{8F6F0AC4-B9A1-45fd-A8CF-72F04E6BDE8F}");
    [STAThread]
    static void Main() {
        if(mutex.WaitOne(TimeSpan.Zero, true)) {
            Application.EnableVisualStyles();
            Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
            Application.Run(new Form1());
            mutex.ReleaseMutex();
        } else {
            MessageBox.Show("only one instance at a time");
        }
    }
}

So, if our app is running, WaitOne will return false, and we'll get a message box. Instead of showing a message box, I opted to utilize a little Win32 to notify my running instance that someone forgot that it was already running (by bringing itself to the top of all the other windows). To achieve this I used PostMessage to broadcast a custom message to every window (the custom message was registered with RegisterWindowMessage by my running application, which means only my application knows what it is) then my second instance exits. The running application instance would receive that notification and process it. In order to do that, I overrode WndProc in my main form and listened for my custom notification. When I received that notification I set the form's TopMost property to true to bring it up on top. Here is what I ended up with: Program.cs

static class Program
{
    static Mutex mutex = new Mutex(true, "{8F6F0AC4-B9A1-45fd-A8CF-72F04E6BDE8F}");
    [STAThread]
    static void Main() {
        if(mutex.WaitOne(TimeSpan.Zero, true)) {
            Application.EnableVisualStyles();
            Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
            Application.Run(new Form1());
            mutex.ReleaseMutex();
        } else {
            // send our Win32 message to make the currently running instance
            // jump on top of all the other windows
            NativeMethods.PostMessage(
                (IntPtr)NativeMethods.HWND_BROADCAST,
                NativeMethods.WM_SHOWME,
                IntPtr.Zero,
                IntPtr.Zero);
        }
    }
}

NativeMethods.cs

// this class just wraps some Win32 stuff that we're going to use
internal class NativeMethods
{
    public const int HWND_BROADCAST = 0xffff;
    public static readonly int WM_SHOWME = RegisterWindowMessage("WM_SHOWME");
    [DllImport("user32")]
    public static extern bool PostMessage(IntPtr hwnd, int msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam);
    [DllImport("user32")]
    public static extern int RegisterWindowMessage(string message);
}

Form1.cs(正面部分)

public partial class Form1 : Form
{
    public Form1()
    {
        InitializeComponent();
    }
    protected override void WndProc(ref Message m)
    {
        if(m.Msg == NativeMethods.WM_SHOWME) {
            ShowMe();
        }
        base.WndProc(ref m);
    }
    private void ShowMe()
    {
        if(WindowState == FormWindowState.Minimized) {
            WindowState = FormWindowState.Normal;
        }
        // get our current "TopMost" value (ours will always be false though)
        bool top = TopMost;
        // make our form jump to the top of everything
        TopMost = true;
        // set it back to whatever it was
        TopMost = top;
    }
}

Just some thoughts: There are cases when requiring that only one instance of an application is not "lame" as some would have you believe. Database apps, etc. are an order of magnitude more difficult if one allows multiple instances of the app for a single user to access a database (you know, all that updating all the records that are open in multiple instances of the app on the users machine, etc.). First, for the "name collision thing, don't use a human readable name - use a GUID instead or, even better a GUID + the human readable name. Chances of name collision just dropped off the radar and the Mutex doesn't care. As someone pointed out, a DOS attack would suck, but if the malicious person has gone to the trouble of getting the mutex name and incorporating it into their app, you are pretty much a target anyway and will have to do MUCH more to protect yourself than just fiddle a mutex name. Also, if one uses the variant of: new Mutex(true, "some GUID plus Name", out AIsFirstInstance), you already have your indicator as to whether or not the Mutex is the first instance.

这就是我最终处理这个问题的方式。注意，调试代码仍然在那里进行测试。这段代码在App.xaml.cs文件的OnStartup中。(WPF)

        // Process already running ? 
        if (Process.GetProcessesByName(Process.GetCurrentProcess().ProcessName).Length > 1)
        {

            // Show your error message
            MessageBox.Show("xxx is already running.  \r\n\r\nIf the original process is hung up you may need to restart your computer, or kill the current xxx process using the task manager.", "xxx is already running!", MessageBoxButton.OK, MessageBoxImage.Exclamation);

            // This process 
            Process currentProcess = Process.GetCurrentProcess();

            // Get all processes running on the local computer.
            Process[] localAll = Process.GetProcessesByName(Process.GetCurrentProcess().ProcessName);

            // ID of this process... 
            int temp = currentProcess.Id;
            MessageBox.Show("This Process ID:  " + temp.ToString());

            for (int i = 0; i < localAll.Length; i++)
            {
                // Find the other process 
                if (localAll[i].Id != currentProcess.Id)
                {
                    MessageBox.Show("Original Process ID (Switching to):  " + localAll[i].Id.ToString());

                    // Switch to it... 
                    SetForegroundWindow(localAll[i].MainWindowHandle);

                }
            }

            Application.Current.Shutdown();

        }

这可能有我还没有发现的问题。如果我遇到了，我会更新我的答案。

这是我的整个App.xaml.cs，这段代码也将启动的程序实例带到前台:

public partial class App : Application
{
    private static Mutex _mutex = null;

    [DllImport("user32.dll")]
    static extern bool SetForegroundWindow(IntPtr hWnd);

    [DllImport("user32.dll")]
    static extern bool ShowWindow(IntPtr hWnd, int nCmdShow);

    protected override void OnStartup(StartupEventArgs e)
    {
        _mutex = new Mutex(true, "YourMutexName", out var createdNew);

        if (!createdNew)
        {
            using (var currentProcess = Process.GetCurrentProcess())
            {
                foreach (var process in Process.GetProcessesByName(currentProcess.ProcessName))
                {
                    if (process.Id != currentProcess.Id)
                    {
                        ShowWindow(process.MainWindowHandle, 9);
                        SetForegroundWindow(process.MainWindowHandle);
                    }
                    process.Dispose();
                }
            }
            // app is already running! Exiting the application  
            Shutdown();
        }

        base.OnStartup(e);
    }

    protected override void OnExit(ExitEventArgs e)
    {
        _mutex.Dispose();
        base.OnExit(e);
    }
}

从这里。

跨进程互斥锁的一个常见用途是确保一个程序一次只能运行一个实例。以下是如何做到的:

class OneAtATimePlease {

  // Use a name unique to the application (eg include your company URL)
  static Mutex mutex = new Mutex (false, "oreilly.com OneAtATimeDemo");

  static void Main()
  {
    // Wait 5 seconds if contended – in case another instance
    // of the program is in the process of shutting down.
    if (!mutex.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromSeconds (5), false))
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Another instance of the app is running. Bye!");
        return;
    }

    try
    {    
        Console.WriteLine("Running - press Enter to exit");
        Console.ReadLine();
    }
    finally
    {
        mutex.ReleaseMutex();
    }    
  }    
}

互斥锁的一个很好的特性是，如果应用程序在没有首先调用ReleaseMutex的情况下终止，CLR将自动释放互斥锁。