Synchronized方法用于锁定所有对象 同步块用于锁定特定对象

唯一真正的区别是同步块可以选择在哪个对象上同步。同步方法只能使用'this'(或同步类方法的相应Class实例)。例如，它们在语义上是等价的:

synchronized void foo() {
  ...
}

void foo() {
    synchronized (this) {
      ...
    }
}

后者更灵活，因为它可以竞争任何对象(通常是成员变量)的关联锁。它也更细粒度，因为您可以在块之前和块之后执行并发代码，但仍然在方法中。当然，您也可以通过将并发代码重构为单独的非同步方法来轻松地使用同步方法。使用任何使代码更容易理解的方法。

Synchronizing with threads. 1) NEVER use synchronized(this) in a thread it doesn't work. Synchronizing with (this) uses the current thread as the locking thread object. Since each thread is independent of other threads, there is NO coordination of synchronization. 2) Tests of code show that in Java 1.6 on a Mac the method synchronization does not work. 3) synchronized(lockObj) where lockObj is a common shared object of all threads synchronizing on it will work. 4) ReenterantLock.lock() and .unlock() work. See Java tutorials for this.

The following code shows these points. It also contains the thread-safe Vector which would be substituted for the ArrayList, to show that many threads adding to a Vector do not lose any information, while the same with an ArrayList can lose information. 0) Current code shows loss of information due to race conditions A) Comment the current labeled A line, and uncomment the A line above it, then run, method loses data but it shouldn't. B) Reverse step A, uncomment B and // end block }. Then run to see results no loss of data C) Comment out B, uncomment C. Run, see synchronizing on (this) loses data, as expected. Don't have time to complete all the variations, hope this helps. If synchronizing on (this), or the method synchronization works, please state what version of Java and OS you tested. Thank you.

import java.util.*;

/** RaceCondition - Shows that when multiple threads compete for resources 
     thread one may grab the resource expecting to update a particular 
     area but is removed from the CPU before finishing.  Thread one still 
     points to that resource.  Then thread two grabs that resource and 
     completes the update.  Then thread one gets to complete the update, 
     which over writes thread two's work.
     DEMO:  1) Run as is - see missing counts from race condition, Run severa times, values change  
            2) Uncomment "synchronized(countLock){ }" - see counts work
            Synchronized creates a lock on that block of code, no other threads can 
            execute code within a block that another thread has a lock.
        3) Comment ArrayList, unComment Vector - See no loss in collection
            Vectors work like ArrayList, but Vectors are "Thread Safe"
         May use this code as long as attribution to the author remains intact.
     /mf
*/ 

public class RaceCondition {
    private ArrayList<Integer> raceList = new ArrayList<Integer>(); // simple add(#)
//  private Vector<Integer> raceList = new Vector<Integer>(); // simple add(#)

    private String countLock="lock";    // Object use for locking the raceCount
    private int raceCount = 0;        // simple add 1 to this counter
    private int MAX = 10000;        // Do this 10,000 times
    private int NUM_THREADS = 100;    // Create 100 threads

    public static void main(String [] args) {
    new RaceCondition();
    }

    public RaceCondition() {
    ArrayList<Thread> arT = new ArrayList<Thread>();

    // Create thread objects, add them to an array list
    for( int i=0; i<NUM_THREADS; i++){
        Thread rt = new RaceThread( ); // i );
        arT.add( rt );
    }

    // Start all object at once.
    for( Thread rt : arT ){
        rt.start();
    }

    // Wait for all threads to finish before we can print totals created by threads
    for( int i=0; i<NUM_THREADS; i++){
        try { arT.get(i).join(); }
        catch( InterruptedException ie ) { System.out.println("Interrupted thread "+i); }
    }

    // All threads finished, print the summary information.
    // (Try to print this informaiton without the join loop above)
    System.out.printf("\nRace condition, should have %,d. Really have %,d in array, and count of %,d.\n",
                MAX*NUM_THREADS, raceList.size(), raceCount );
    System.out.printf("Array lost %,d. Count lost %,d\n",
             MAX*NUM_THREADS-raceList.size(), MAX*NUM_THREADS-raceCount );
    }   // end RaceCondition constructor



    class RaceThread extends Thread {
    public void run() {
        for ( int i=0; i<MAX; i++){
        try {
            update( i );        
        }    // These  catches show when one thread steps on another's values
        catch( ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException ai ){ System.out.print("A"); }
        catch( OutOfMemoryError oome ) { System.out.print("O"); }
        }
    }

    // so we don't lose counts, need to synchronize on some object, not primitive
    // Created "countLock" to show how this can work.
    // Comment out the synchronized and ending {, see that we lose counts.

//    public synchronized void update(int i){   // use A
    public void update(int i){                  // remove this when adding A
//      synchronized(countLock){            // or B
//      synchronized(this){             // or C
        raceCount = raceCount + 1;
        raceList.add( i );      // use Vector  
//          }           // end block for B or C
    }   // end update

    }   // end RaceThread inner class


} // end RaceCondition outter class

大多数情况下，我使用它来同步对列表或映射的访问，但我不想阻止对对象的所有方法的访问。

在下面的代码中，修改列表的线程不会阻塞等待正在修改映射的线程。如果方法在对象上是同步的，那么每个方法都必须等待，即使它们所做的修改不会冲突。

private List<Foo> myList = new ArrayList<Foo>();
private Map<String,Bar) myMap = new HashMap<String,Bar>();

public void put( String s, Bar b ) {
  synchronized( myMap ) {
    myMap.put( s,b );
    // then some thing that may take a while like a database access or RPC or notifying listeners
  }
}

public void hasKey( String s, ) {
  synchronized( myMap ) {
    myMap.hasKey( s );
  }
}

public void add( Foo f ) {
  synchronized( myList ) {
    myList.add( f );
// then some thing that may take a while like a database access or RPC or notifying listeners
  }
}

public Thing getMedianFoo() {
  Foo med = null;
  synchronized( myList ) {
    Collections.sort(myList);
    med = myList.get(myList.size()/2); 
  }
  return med;
}

TLDR;不要使用synchronized修饰符或synchronized(this){…}表达式but synchronized(myLock){…其中myLock是一个持有私有对象的最终实例字段。

在方法声明中使用synchronized修饰符与在方法主体中使用synchronized(..){}表达式的区别如下:

The synchronized modifier specified on the method's signature is visible in the generated JavaDoc, is programmatically determinable via reflection when testing a method's modifier for Modifier.SYNCHRONIZED, requires less typing and indention compared to synchronized(this) { .... }, and (depending on your IDE) is visible in the class outline and code completion, uses the this object as lock when declared on non-static method or the enclosing class when declared on a static method. The synchronized(...){...} expression allows you to only synchronize the execution of parts of a method's body, to be used within a constructor or a (static) initialization block, to choose the lock object which controls the synchronized access.

然而，使用synchronized修饰符或synchronized(…){…}使用this作为锁对象(如synchronized(this){…})，也有同样的缺点。两者都使用它自己的实例作为锁对象进行同步。这是很危险的，因为不仅对象本身，而且任何其他持有该对象引用的外部对象/代码也可以将其用作同步锁，这可能会产生严重的副作用(性能下降和死锁)。

因此，最佳实践是既不使用synchronized修饰符，也不使用synchronized(…)表达式作为锁对象，而是使用该对象的私有锁对象。例如:

public class MyService {
    private final lock = new Object();

    public void doThis() {
       synchronized(lock) {
          // do code that requires synchronous execution
        }
    }

    public void doThat() {
       synchronized(lock) {
          // do code that requires synchronous execution
        }
    }
}

您也可以使用多个锁对象，但是需要特别注意，以确保在嵌套使用时不会导致死锁。

public class MyService {
    private final lock1 = new Object();
    private final lock2 = new Object();

    public void doThis() {
       synchronized(lock1) {
          synchronized(lock2) {
              // code here is guaranteed not to be executes at the same time
              // as the synchronized code in doThat() and doMore().
          }
    }

    public void doThat() {
       synchronized(lock1) {
              // code here is guaranteed not to be executes at the same time
              // as the synchronized code in doThis().
              // doMore() may execute concurrently
        }
    }

    public void doMore() {
       synchronized(lock2) {
              // code here is guaranteed not to be executes at the same time
              // as the synchronized code in doThis().
              // doThat() may execute concurrently
        }
    }
}

我知道这是一个老问题，但通过快速阅读这里的回答，我并没有看到任何人提到同步方法有时可能是错误的锁。 摘自Java并发实践(第72页):

public class ListHelper<E> {
  public List<E> list = Collections.syncrhonizedList(new ArrayList<>());
...

public syncrhonized boolean putIfAbsent(E x) {
 boolean absent = !list.contains(x);
if(absent) {
 list.add(x);
}
return absent;
}

上面的代码看起来是线程安全的。然而，现实并非如此。在这种情况下，锁在类的实例上获得。但是，该列表可能被另一个不使用该方法的线程修改。正确的方法是使用

public boolean putIfAbsent(E x) {
 synchronized(list) {
  boolean absent = !list.contains(x);
  if(absent) {
    list.add(x);
  }
  return absent;
}
}

上面的代码将阻止所有试图修改list的线程修改列表，直到同步块完成。