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

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();

关于它有一篇非常好的文章http://bytes.com/topic/c-sharp/answers/249277-dont-lock-type-objects，作者是Rico Mariani，他是Microsoft®.NET运行时的性能架构师

摘录:

这里的基本问题是您不拥有类型对象，而您 不知道还有谁能拿到。总的来说，这是一个非常糟糕的主意 依赖于锁定一个不是你创建的对象，也不知道还有谁 可能是存取。这样做会导致僵局。最安全的方法是 只锁定私有对象。

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.

请参考下面的链接，它解释了为什么锁(这)不是一个好主意。

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/threading/managed-threading-best-practices

所以解决方案是添加一个私有对象，例如，lockObject到类中，并将代码区域放在lock语句中，如下所示:

lock (lockObject)
{
...
}

.．.同样的论点也适用于这个结构:

lock(typeof(SomeObject))