下面是一个更优雅、更安全、更快速、更脏的方法，结合了上面提供的答案。

使用

包括sh_lock_functions.sh 使用sh_lock_init初始化 使用sh_acquire_lock进行锁定 使用sh_check_lock检查锁 使用sh_remove_lock解锁

脚本文件

sh_lock_functions.sh

#!/bin/bash

function sh_lock_init {
    sh_lock_scriptName=$(basename $0)
    sh_lock_dir="/tmp/${sh_lock_scriptName}.lock" #lock directory
    sh_lock_file="${sh_lock_dir}/lockPid.txt" #lock file
}

function sh_acquire_lock {
    if mkdir $sh_lock_dir 2>/dev/null; then #check for lock
        echo "$sh_lock_scriptName lock acquired successfully.">&2
        touch $sh_lock_file
        echo $$ > $sh_lock_file # set current pid in lockFile
        return 0
    else
        touch $sh_lock_file
        read sh_lock_lastPID < $sh_lock_file
        if [ ! -z "$sh_lock_lastPID" -a -d /proc/$sh_lock_lastPID ]; then # if lastPID is not null and a process with that pid exists
            echo "$sh_lock_scriptName is already running.">&2
            return 1
        else
            echo "$sh_lock_scriptName stopped during execution, reacquiring lock.">&2
            echo $$ > $sh_lock_file # set current pid in lockFile
            return 2
        fi
    fi
    return 0
}

function sh_check_lock {
    [[ ! -f $sh_lock_file ]] && echo "$sh_lock_scriptName lock file removed.">&2 && return 1
    read sh_lock_lastPID < $sh_lock_file
    [[ $sh_lock_lastPID -ne $$ ]] && echo "$sh_lock_scriptName lock file pid has changed.">&2  && return 2
    echo "$sh_lock_scriptName lock still in place.">&2
    return 0
}

function sh_remove_lock {
    rm -r $sh_lock_dir
}

使用的例子

sh_lock_usage_example.sh

#!/bin/bash
. /path/to/sh_lock_functions.sh # load sh lock functions

sh_lock_init || exit $?

sh_acquire_lock
lockStatus=$?
[[ $lockStatus -eq 1 ]] && exit $lockStatus
[[ $lockStatus -eq 2 ]] && echo "lock is set, do some resume from crash procedures";

#monitoring example
cnt=0
while sh_check_lock # loop while lock is in place
do
    echo "$sh_scriptName running (pid $$)"
    sleep 1
    let cnt++
    [[ $cnt -gt 5 ]] && break
done

#remove lock when process finished
sh_remove_lock || exit $?

exit 0

特性

使用文件、目录和进程id的组合来锁定，以确保进程尚未运行 您可以检测脚本是否在删除锁之前停止(例如。进程终止，关闭，错误等) 您可以检查锁文件，并在丢失锁时使用它来触发进程关闭 Verbose，输出错误消息，以便于调试

信号量实用程序使用flock(如上所述，例如by presto8)来实现计数信号量。它支持您想要的任意数量的并发进程。我们使用它来限制各种队列工作者进程的并发级别。

它很像sem，但重量轻得多。(完全披露:我是在发现sem对我们的需求来说太繁重了，而且没有一个简单的计数信号量实用程序可用后写的。)

使用flock(1)在文件描述符上创建一个独占作用域锁。通过这种方式，您甚至可以同步脚本的不同部分。

#!/bin/bash

(
  # Wait for lock on /var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock (fd 200) for 10 seconds
  flock -x -w 10 200 || exit 1

  # Do stuff

) 200>/var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock

这确保(和)之间的代码一次只由一个进程运行，并且该进程不会为锁等待太长时间。

注意:这个特殊的命令是util-linux的一部分。如果您运行的是Linux以外的操作系统，那么它可能不可用，也可能不可用。

我对现有的答案有以下问题:

Some answers try to clean up lock files and then having to deal with stale lock files caused by e.g. sudden crash/reboot. IMO that is unnecessarily complicated. Let lock files stay. Some answers use script file itself $0 or $BASH_SOURCE for locking often referring to examples from man flock. This fails when script is replaced due to update or edit causing next run to open and obtain lock on the new script file even though another instance holding a lock on the removed file is still running. Few answers use a fixed file descriptor. This is not ideal. I do not want to rely on how this will behave e.g. opening lock file fails but gets mishandled and attempts to lock on unrelated file descriptor inherited from parent process. Another fail case is injecting locking wrapper for a 3rd party binary that does not handle locking itself but fixed file descriptors can interfere with file descriptor passing to child processes. I reject answers using process lookup for already running script name. There are several reasons for it, such as but not limited to reliability/atomicity, parsing output, and having script that does several related functions some of which do not require locking.

这个答案是:

rely on flock because it gets kernel to provide locking ... provided lock file is created atomically and not replaced. assume and rely on lock file being stored on the local filesystem as opposed to NFS. change lock file presence to NOT mean anything about a running instance. Its role is purely to prevent two concurrent instances creating file with same name and replacing another's copy. Lock file does not get deleted, it gets left behind and can survive across reboots. The locking is indicated via flock not via lock file presence. assume bash shell, as tagged by the question.

它不是一个联机程序，但是没有注释和错误消息，它足够小:

#!/bin/bash

LOCKFILE=/var/lock/TODO

set -o noclobber
exec {lockfd}<> "${LOCKFILE}" || exit 1
set +o noclobber # depends on what you need
flock --exclusive --nonblock ${lockfd} || exit 1

但我更喜欢注释和错误消息:

#!/bin/bash

# TODO Set a lock file name
LOCKFILE=/var/lock/myprogram.lock

# Set noclobber option to ensure lock file is not REPLACED.
set -o noclobber

# Open lock file for R+W on a new file descriptor
# and assign the new file descriptor to "lockfd" variable.
# This does NOT obtain a lock but ensures the file exists and opens it.
exec {lockfd}<> "${LOCKFILE}" || {
  echo "pid=$$ failed to open LOCKFILE='${LOCKFILE}'" 1>&2
  exit 1
}

# TODO!!!! undo/set the desired noclobber value for the remainder of the script
set +o noclobber

# Lock on the allocated file descriptor or fail
# Adjust flock options e.g. --noblock as needed
flock --exclusive --nonblock ${lockfd} || {
  echo "pid=$$ failed to obtain lock fd='${lockfd}' LOCKFILE='${LOCKFILE}'" 1>&2
  exit 1
}

# DO work here
echo "pid=$$ obtained exclusive lock fd='${lockfd}' LOCKFILE='${LOCKFILE}'"

# Can unlock after critical section and do more work after unlocking
#flock -u ${lockfd};
# if unlocking then might as well close lockfd too
#exec {lockfd}<&-

我发现bmdhack的解决方案是最实用的，至少对我的用例来说是这样。使用flock和lockfile依赖于在脚本终止时使用rm删除lockfile，这不能总是得到保证(例如，kill -9)。

关于bmdhack的解决方案，我要改变一件小事:它强调删除锁文件，但没有说明这对于这个信号量的安全工作是不必要的。他使用kill -0来确保死进程的旧锁文件将被忽略/覆盖。

因此，我的简化解决方案是简单地将以下内容添加到单例的顶部:

## Test the lock
LOCKFILE=/tmp/singleton.lock 
if [ -e ${LOCKFILE} ] && kill -0 `cat ${LOCKFILE}`; then
    echo "Script already running. bye!"
    exit 
fi

## Set the lock 
echo $$ > ${LOCKFILE}

当然，这个脚本仍然有一个缺陷，即可能同时启动的进程存在竞争风险，因为锁定测试和设置操作不是单个原子动作。但是lhunath提出的使用mkdir的解决方案有一个缺陷，即被杀死的脚本可能会留下目录，从而阻止其他实例运行。

上面有很多很好的答案。你也可以使用dotlockfile。

这是一些你可以在你的脚本中使用的示例代码:

$LOCKFILENAME=/var/run/test.lock

if ! dotlockfile -l -p -r 2 $LOCKFILENAME
then
    echo "This test process already running!"
    exit 1
fi