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}<&-

对于shell脚本，我倾向于使用mkdir而不是flock，因为它使锁更可移植。

不管怎样，使用set -e是不够的。它只在任何命令失败时退出脚本。你的锁还是会留下的。

为了正确的锁清理，你真的应该把你的陷阱设置成这样的伪代码(提取，简化和未经测试，但来自积极使用的脚本):

#=======================================================================
# Predefined Global Variables
#=======================================================================

TMPDIR=/tmp/myapp
[[ ! -d $TMP_DIR ]] \
    && mkdir -p $TMP_DIR \
    && chmod 700 $TMPDIR

LOCK_DIR=$TMP_DIR/lock

#=======================================================================
# Functions
#=======================================================================

function mklock {
    __lockdir="$LOCK_DIR/$(date +%s.%N).$$" # Private Global. Use Epoch.Nano.PID

    # If it can create $LOCK_DIR then no other instance is running
    if $(mkdir $LOCK_DIR)
    then
        mkdir $__lockdir  # create this instance's specific lock in queue
        LOCK_EXISTS=true  # Global
    else
        echo "FATAL: Lock already exists. Another copy is running or manually lock clean up required."
        exit 1001  # Or work out some sleep_while_execution_lock elsewhere
    fi
}

function rmlock {
    [[ ! -d $__lockdir ]] \
        && echo "WARNING: Lock is missing. $__lockdir does not exist" \
        || rmdir $__lockdir
}

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Private Signal Traps Functions {{{2
#
# DANGER: SIGKILL cannot be trapped. So, try not to `kill -9 PID` or 
#         there will be *NO CLEAN UP*. You'll have to manually remove 
#         any locks in place.
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
function __sig_exit {

    # Place your clean up logic here 

    # Remove the LOCK
    [[ -n $LOCK_EXISTS ]] && rmlock
}

function __sig_int {
    echo "WARNING: SIGINT caught"    
    exit 1002
}

function __sig_quit {
    echo "SIGQUIT caught"
    exit 1003
}

function __sig_term {
    echo "WARNING: SIGTERM caught"    
    exit 1015
}

#=======================================================================
# Main
#=======================================================================

# Set TRAPs
trap __sig_exit EXIT    # SIGEXIT
trap __sig_int INT      # SIGINT
trap __sig_quit QUIT    # SIGQUIT
trap __sig_term TERM    # SIGTERM

mklock

# CODE

exit # No need for cleanup code here being in the __sig_exit trap function

接下来会发生什么。所有陷阱都会产生一个出口，所以__sig_exit函数总是会发生(除非SIGKILL)，它会清理你的锁。

注意:我的退出值不是低值。为什么?各种批处理系统生成或期望数字0到31。将它们设置为其他内容，我可以让我的脚本和批处理流对前一个批处理作业或脚本做出相应的反应。

为了使锁定可靠，您需要一个原子操作。以上许多建议 不是原子的。建议的lockfile(1)实用程序作为手册页看起来很有前途 提到，它是“抗nfs”的。如果您的操作系统不支持lockfile(1)和 您的解决方案必须在NFS上工作，您没有太多的选项....

NFSv2有两个原子操作:

符号链接 重命名

在NFSv3中，create调用也是原子的。

目录操作在NFSv2和NFSv3下不是原子的(请参考Brent Callaghan的书“NFS Illustrated”，ISBN 0-201-32570-5;Brent是Sun的nfs老手)。

知道了这一点，你可以为文件和目录实现自旋锁(在shell中，而不是PHP中):

锁定当前目录:

while ! ln -s . lock; do :; done

锁定文件:

while ! ln -s ${f} ${f}.lock; do :; done

解锁当前目录(假设正在运行的进程真的获得了锁):

mv lock deleteme && rm deleteme

解锁文件(假设正在运行的进程真的获得了锁):

mv ${f}.lock ${f}.deleteme && rm ${f}.deleteme

Remove也不是原子的，因此首先是rename(它是原子的)，然后是Remove。

对于符号链接和重命名调用，两个文件名必须驻留在同一个文件系统上。我的建议是:只使用简单的文件名(没有路径)，把file和lock放在同一个目录下。

在脚本的开头添加这一行

[ "${FLOCKER}" != "$0" ] && exec env FLOCKER="$0" flock -en "$0" "$0" "$@" || :

这是人类群体的样板代码。

如果需要更多的日志记录，可以使用这个

[ "${FLOCKER}" != "$0" ] && { echo "Trying to start build from queue... "; exec bash -c "FLOCKER='$0' flock -E $E_LOCKED -en '$0' '$0' '$@' || if [ \"\$?\" -eq $E_LOCKED ]; then echo 'Locked.'; fi"; } || echo "Lock is free. Completing."

使用flock工具设置和检查锁。 这段代码通过检查FLOCKER变量来检测它是否第一次运行，如果它没有设置为脚本名称，那么它会尝试再次递归地使用flock启动脚本，并初始化FLOCKER变量，如果FLOCKER设置正确，那么在前一次迭代中flock成功，可以继续。如果锁繁忙，它将失败，并使用可配置的退出代码。

它似乎不能在Debian 7上工作，但似乎可以在实验util-linux 2.25包上再次工作。上面写着“羊群:……文本文件繁忙”。可以通过禁用脚本上的写权限来覆盖它。

又快又脏?

#!/bin/sh

if [ -f sometempfile ]
  echo "Already running... will now terminate."
  exit
else
  touch sometempfile
fi

..do what you want here..

rm sometempfile

这将工作，如果你的脚本名称是唯一的:

#!/bin/bash
if [ $(pgrep -c $(basename $0)) -gt 1 ]; then 
  echo $(basename $0) is already running
  exit 0
fi

如果scriptname不是唯一的，这在大多数linux发行版上都有效:

#!/bin/bash
exec 9>/tmp/my_lock_file
if ! flock -n 9  ; then
   echo "another instance of this script is already running";
   exit 1
fi

来源:http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/045