正如其他人所指出的，线程安全意味着如果一段代码同时被多个线程使用，那么它将正常工作。

值得注意的是，这有时是有代价的，计算机时间和更复杂的编码，所以它并不总是可取的。如果一个类只能安全地在一个线程上使用，那么这样做可能会更好。

例如，Java有两个几乎相同的类:StringBuffer和StringBuilder。不同之处在于StringBuffer是线程安全的，因此StringBuffer的单个实例可以同时被多个线程使用。StringBuilder不是线程安全的，它被设计为仅由一个线程构建String的情况下(绝大多数情况下)的高性能替代品。

一个信息量更大的问题是，是什么使代码不线程安全——答案是，有四个条件必须成立……想象一下下面的代码(它是机器语言翻译)

totalRequests = totalRequests + 1
MOV EAX, [totalRequests]   // load memory for tot Requests into register
INC EAX                    // update register
MOV [totalRequests], EAX   // store updated value back to memory

The first condition is that there are memory locations that are accessible from more than one thread. Typically, these locations are global/static variables or are heap memory reachable from global/static variables. Each thread gets its own stack frame for function/method scoped local variables, so these local function/method variables, otoh, (which are on the stack) are accessible only from the one thread that owns that stack. The second condition is that there is a property (often called an invariant), which is associated with these shared memory locations, that must be true, or valid, for the program to function correctly. In the above example, the property is that “totalRequests must accurately represent the total number of times any thread has executed any part of the increment statement”. Typically, this invariant property needs to hold true (in this case, totalRequests must hold an accurate count) before an update occurs for the update to be correct. The third condition is that the invariant property does NOT hold during some part of the actual update. (It is transiently invalid or false during some portion of the processing). In this particular case, from the time totalRequests is fetched until the time the updated value is stored, totalRequests does not satisfy the invariant. The fourth and final condition that must occur for a race to happen (and for the code to therefore NOT be "thread-safe") is that another thread must be able to access the shared memory while the invariant is broken, thereby causing inconsistent or incorrect behavior.

是也不是。

线程安全不仅仅是确保共享数据一次只能被一个线程访问。您必须确保对共享数据的顺序访问，同时避免竞争条件、死锁、活动锁和资源短缺。

当多个线程同时运行时，不可预知的结果并不是线程安全代码的必要条件，但这通常是一种副产品。例如，您可以使用一个共享队列、一个生产者线程和几个消费者线程来设置生产者-消费者方案，并且数据流可能完全可预测。如果你开始引入更多的消费者，你会看到更多随机的结果。

正如其他人所指出的，线程安全意味着如果一段代码同时被多个线程使用，那么它将正常工作。

值得注意的是，这有时是有代价的，计算机时间和更复杂的编码，所以它并不总是可取的。如果一个类只能安全地在一个线程上使用，那么这样做可能会更好。

例如，Java有两个几乎相同的类:StringBuffer和StringBuilder。不同之处在于StringBuffer是线程安全的，因此StringBuffer的单个实例可以同时被多个线程使用。StringBuilder不是线程安全的，它被设计为仅由一个线程构建String的情况下(绝大多数情况下)的高性能替代品。

我想在其他好的答案之上添加一些更多的信息。

线程安全意味着多个线程可以在同一个对象中读写数据，而不会出现内存不一致错误。在高度多线程的程序中，线程安全的程序不会对共享数据造成副作用。

看看这个SE问题，了解更多细节:

线程安全是什么意思?

线程安全程序保证内存一致性。

从oracle文档页高级并发API:

内存一致性属性:

Java™语言规范的第17章定义了内存操作(如共享变量的读写)的happens-before关系。只有当写操作发生时(在读操作之前)，一个线程的写操作的结果才保证对另一个线程的读操作可见。

synchronized和volatile结构，以及Thread.start()和Thread.join()方法，可以形成happens-before关系。

concurrent中所有类的方法及其子包将这些保证扩展到更高级别的同步。特别是:

Actions in a thread prior to placing an object into any concurrent collection happen-before actions subsequent to the access or removal of that element from the collection in another thread. Actions in a thread prior to the submission of a Runnable to an Executor happen-before its execution begins. Similarly for Callables submitted to an ExecutorService. Actions taken by the asynchronous computation represented by a Future happen-before actions subsequent to the retrieval of the result via Future.get() in another thread. Actions prior to "releasing" synchronizer methods such as Lock.unlock, Semaphore.release, and CountDownLatch.countDown happen-before actions subsequent to a successful "acquiring" method such as Lock.lock, Semaphore.acquire, Condition.await, and CountDownLatch.await on the same synchronizer object in another thread. For each pair of threads that successfully exchange objects via an Exchanger, actions prior to the exchange() in each thread happen-before those subsequent to the corresponding exchange() in another thread. Actions prior to calling CyclicBarrier.await and Phaser.awaitAdvance (as well as its variants) happen-before actions performed by the barrier action, and actions performed by the barrier action happen-before actions subsequent to a successful return from the corresponding await in other threads.

与其认为代码或类是线程安全的，我认为将操作视为线程安全的更有帮助。如果两个操作在从任意线程上下文运行时按照指定的方式运行，那么它们就是线程安全的。在许多情况下，类将以线程安全的方式支持一些操作组合，而其他则不支持。

例如，许多像数组列表和散列集这样的集合可以保证，如果它们最初只由一个线程访问，并且在引用对任何其他线程可见后永远不会被修改，那么它们可以被任何线程组合以任意方式读取而不受干扰。

More interestingly, some hash-set collections such as the original non-generic one in .NET, may offer a guarantee that as long as no item is ever removed, and provided that only one thread ever writes to them, any thread that tries to read the collection will behave as though accessing a collection where updates might be delayed and occur in arbitrary order, but which will otherwise behave normally. If thread #1 adds X and then Y, and thread #2 looks for and sees Y and then X, it would be possible for thread #2 to see that Y exists but X doesn't; whether or not such behavior is "thread-safe" would depend upon whether thread #2 is prepared to deal with that possibility.

As a final note, some classes--especially blocking communications libraries--may have a "close" or "Dispose" method which is thread-safe with respect to all other methods, but no other methods that are thread-safe with respect to each other. If a thread performs a blocking read request and a user of the program clicks "cancel", there would be no way for a close request to be issued by the thread that's attempting to perform the read. The close/dispose request, however, may asynchronously set a flag which will cause the read request to be canceled as soon as possible. Once close is performed on any thread, the object would become useless, and all attempts at future actions would fail immediately, but being able to asynchronously terminate any attempted I/O operations is better than require that the close request be synchronized with the read (since if the read blocks forever, the synchronization request would be likewise blocked).