这里已经说过，同步块可以使用用户定义的变量作为锁对象，当同步函数只使用“this”时。当然，你也可以对函数中需要同步的部分进行操作。

但是每个人都说synchronized函数和block之间没有区别，block覆盖了使用“this”作为锁对象的整个函数。这是不对的，不同的是字节码，将在这两种情况下产生。在同步块使用的情况下，应该分配本地变量，其中包含引用“this”。因此，我们会得到一个更大的函数(如果你只有几个函数，这就无关紧要了)。

你可以在这里找到更详细的解释: http://www.artima.com/insidejvm/ed2/threadsynchP.html

同步块的使用也不好，原因如下:

synchronized关键字在一个方面非常有限:当退出一个同步块时，所有等待该锁的线程都必须被解除阻塞，但只有其中一个线程可以获得锁;所有其他人都看到锁已被占用，并返回阻塞状态。这不仅仅是浪费了大量的处理周期:为解除线程阻塞而进行的上下文切换通常还涉及从磁盘调出内存，这是非常非常昂贵的。

关于这方面的更多细节，我建议你阅读这篇文章: http://java.dzone.com/articles/synchronized-considered

锁可以用于可见性，也可以用于保护一些数据不受可能导致竞争的并发修改的影响。

当您需要将基本类型操作设置为原子类型时，可以使用AtomicInteger之类的选项。

但是假设你有两个整数，它们像x和y坐标一样彼此相关，它们彼此相关，应该以原子的方式改变。然后使用相同的锁来保护它们。

锁应该只保护彼此相关的状态。不多不少。如果在每个方法中都使用synchronized(this)，那么即使类的状态是不相关的，即使更新不相关的状态，所有线程也将面临争用。

class Point{
   private int x;
   private int y;

   public Point(int x, int y){
       this.x = x;
       this.y = y;
   }

   //mutating methods should be guarded by same lock
   public synchronized void changeCoordinates(int x, int y){
       this.x = x;
       this.y = y;
   }
}

在上面的例子中，我只有一个方法同时改变x和y，而不是两个不同的方法，因为x和y是相关的，如果我给了两个不同的方法分别改变x和y，那么它就不会是线程安全的。

这个例子只是为了演示它的实现方式，而不一定是这样。最好的方法是让它成为IMMUTABLE。

现在，与Point例子相反的是，@Andreas已经提供了一个TwoCounters的例子，其中状态被两个不同的锁保护，因为状态彼此不相关。

使用不同的锁来保护不相关的状态的过程称为锁剥离或锁分裂

首先需要指出的是:

public void blah() {
  synchronized (this) {
    // do stuff
  }
}

语义上等价于:

public synchronized void blah() {
  // do stuff
}

这是不使用synchronized(this)的一个原因。您可能会说，您可以围绕synchronized(this)块做一些事情。通常的原因是试图避免必须进行同步检查，这将导致各种并发问题，特别是双重检查锁定问题，这表明要使一个相对简单的检查具有线程安全性是多么困难。

私有锁是一种防御机制，这从来都不是一个坏主意。

另外，正如您所提到的，私有锁可以控制粒度。一个对象上的一组操作可能与另一组完全无关，但同步(这)将相互排除对所有这些操作的访问。

同步(这个)真的不能给你任何东西。

这实际上只是对其他答案的补充，但如果你对使用私有对象进行锁定的主要反对意见是，它会使你的类与与业务逻辑无关的字段混乱，那么Project Lombok有@Synchronized在编译时生成样板:

@Synchronized
public int foo() {
    return 0;
}

编译,

private final Object $lock = new Object[0];

public int foo() {
    synchronized($lock) {
        return 0;
    }
}

我认为第一点(其他人使用您的锁)和第二点(所有方法不必要地使用相同的锁)可能发生在任何相当大的应用程序中。特别是当开发人员之间没有良好的沟通时。

这不是一成不变的，这主要是一个良好的实践和防止错误的问题。

I think there is a good explanation on why each of these are vital techniques under your belt in a book called Java Concurrency In Practice by Brian Goetz. He makes one point very clear - you must use the same lock "EVERYWHERE" to protect the state of your object. Synchronised method and synchronising on an object often go hand in hand. E.g. Vector synchronises all its methods. If you have a handle to a vector object and are going to do "put if absent" then merely Vector synchronising its own individual methods isn't going to protect you from corruption of state. You need to synchronise using synchronised (vectorHandle). This will result in the SAME lock being acquired by every thread which has a handle to the vector and will protect overall state of the vector. This is called client side locking. We do know as a matter of fact vector does synchronised (this) / synchronises all its methods and hence synchronising on the object vectorHandle will result in proper synchronisation of vector objects state. Its foolish to believe that you are thread safe just because you are using a thread safe collection. This is precisely the reason ConcurrentHashMap explicitly introduced putIfAbsent method - to make such operations atomic.

总之

Synchronising at method level allows client side locking. If you have a private lock object - it makes client side locking impossible. This is fine if you know that your class doesn't have "put if absent" type of functionality. If you are designing a library - then synchronising on this or synchronising the method is often wiser. Because you are rarely in a position to decide how your class is going to be used. Had Vector used a private lock object - it would have been impossible to get "put if absent" right. The client code will never gain a handle to the private lock thus breaking the fundamental rule of using the EXACT SAME LOCK to protect its state. Synchronising on this or synchronised methods do have a problem as others have pointed out - someone could get a lock and never release it. All other threads would keep waiting for the lock to be released. So know what you are doing and adopt the one that's correct. Someone argued that having a private lock object gives you better granularity - e.g. if two operations are unrelated - they could be guarded by different locks resulting in better throughput. But this i think is design smell and not code smell - if two operations are completely unrelated why are they part of the SAME class? Why should a class club unrelated functionalities at all? May be a utility class? Hmmmm - some util providing string manipulation and calendar date formatting through the same instance?? ... doesn't make any sense to me at least!!