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}<&-

PID和锁文件绝对是最可靠的。当您尝试运行程序时，它可以检查锁文件，如果它存在，它可以使用ps查看进程是否仍在运行。如果不是，脚本可以启动，将锁文件中的PID更新为自己的PID。

你需要一个原子操作，比如flock，否则最终会失败。

但是如果没有羊群，该怎么办呢?这是mkdir。这也是一个原子操作。只有一个进程会成功执行mkdir，其他进程都会失败。

所以代码是:

if mkdir /var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock
then
  # do stuff
  :
  rmdir /var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock
fi

你需要处理陈旧的锁，否则崩溃后你的脚本将永远不会再次运行。

我使用onlineer @脚本的开头:

#!/bin/bash

if [[ $(pgrep -afc "$(basename "$0")") -gt "1" ]]; then echo "Another instance of "$0" has already been started!" && exit; fi
.
the_beginning_of_actual_script

在内存中看到进程的存在是很好的(不管进程的状态是什么);但它对我很有用。

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

我有一个基于文件名的简单解决方案

#!/bin/bash

MY_FILENAME=`basename "$BASH_SOURCE"`

MY_PROCESS_COUNT=$(ps a -o pid,cmd | grep $MY_FILENAME | grep -v grep | grep -v $$ | wc -
l)

if [ $MY_PROCESS_COUNT -ne 0  ]; then
  echo found another process
  exit 0
if

# Follows the code to get the job done.