为什么我们不用像这样的东西

pgrep -f $cmd || $cmd

如果flock的限制，这已经在这篇文章的其他地方描述过了，对你来说不是问题，那么这应该是有效的:

#!/bin/bash

{
    # exit if we are unable to obtain a lock; this would happen if 
    # the script is already running elsewhere
    # note: -x (exclusive) is the default
    flock -n 100 || exit

    # put commands to run here
    sleep 100
} 100>/tmp/myjob.lock 

在flock(2)系统调用周围有一个包装器，毫无想象力地称为flock(1)。这使得可靠地获得独占锁相对容易，而不必担心清理等问题。手册页上有一些关于如何在shell脚本中使用它的示例。

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

我使用一种简单的方法来处理过期的锁文件。

注意，上面的一些解决方案存储pid，忽略了pid可以环绕的事实。因此，仅仅检查是否有一个有效的进程与存储的pid是不够的，特别是对于长时间运行的脚本。

我使用noclobber来确保一次只能打开一个脚本并写入锁文件。此外，我在锁文件中存储了足够的信息来惟一地标识一个进程。我定义了一组数据来唯一地标识一个进程为pid、ppid、lstart。

当一个新脚本启动时，如果它未能创建锁文件，那么它将验证创建锁文件的进程是否仍然存在。如果不是，我们假设原始进程不体面地死亡，并留下一个过时的锁文件。然后，新脚本获得锁文件的所有权，一切又恢复正常了。

应该与跨多个平台的多个shell一起工作。快速、便携、简单。

#!/usr/bin/env sh
# Author: rouble

LOCKFILE=/var/tmp/lockfile #customize this line

trap release INT TERM EXIT

# Creates a lockfile. Sets global variable $ACQUIRED to true on success.
# 
# Returns 0 if it is successfully able to create lockfile.
acquire () {
    set -C #Shell noclobber option. If file exists, > will fail.
    UUID=`ps -eo pid,ppid,lstart $$ | tail -1`
    if (echo "$UUID" > "$LOCKFILE") 2>/dev/null; then
        ACQUIRED="TRUE"
        return 0
    else
        if [ -e $LOCKFILE ]; then 
            # We may be dealing with a stale lock file.
            # Bring out the magnifying glass. 
            CURRENT_UUID_FROM_LOCKFILE=`cat $LOCKFILE`
            CURRENT_PID_FROM_LOCKFILE=`cat $LOCKFILE | cut -f 1 -d " "`
            CURRENT_UUID_FROM_PS=`ps -eo pid,ppid,lstart $CURRENT_PID_FROM_LOCKFILE | tail -1`
            if [ "$CURRENT_UUID_FROM_LOCKFILE" == "$CURRENT_UUID_FROM_PS" ]; then 
                echo "Script already running with following identification: $CURRENT_UUID_FROM_LOCKFILE" >&2
                return 1
            else
                # The process that created this lock file died an ungraceful death. 
                # Take ownership of the lock file.
                echo "The process $CURRENT_UUID_FROM_LOCKFILE is no longer around. Taking ownership of $LOCKFILE"
                release "FORCE"
                if (echo "$UUID" > "$LOCKFILE") 2>/dev/null; then
                    ACQUIRED="TRUE"
                    return 0
                else
                    echo "Cannot write to $LOCKFILE. Error." >&2
                    return 1
                fi
            fi
        else
            echo "Do you have write permissons to $LOCKFILE ?" >&2
            return 1
        fi
    fi
}

# Removes the lock file only if this script created it ($ACQUIRED is set), 
# OR, if we are removing a stale lock file (first parameter is "FORCE") 
release () {
    #Destroy lock file. Take no prisoners.
    if [ "$ACQUIRED" ] || [ "$1" == "FORCE" ]; then
        rm -f $LOCKFILE
    fi
}

# Test code
# int main( int argc, const char* argv[] )
echo "Acquring lock."
acquire
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then 
    echo "Acquired lock."
    read -p "Press [Enter] key to release lock..."
    release
    echo "Released lock."
else
    echo "Unable to acquire lock."
fi

实际上，尽管bmdhacks的答案几乎很好，但在第一次检查锁文件之后和在写入它之前，第二个脚本有轻微的机会运行。它们都将写入锁文件，它们都将运行。以下是如何确保它有效的方法:

lockfile=/var/lock/myscript.lock

if ( set -o noclobber; echo "$$" > "$lockfile") 2> /dev/null ; then
  trap 'rm -f "$lockfile"; exit $?' INT TERM EXIT
else
  # or you can decide to skip the "else" part if you want
  echo "Another instance is already running!"
fi

如果文件已经存在，noclobber选项将确保重定向命令将失败。因此，重定向命令实际上是原子的—您用一个命令写入和检查文件。你不需要在文件的末尾删除锁文件-它会被陷阱删除。我希望这对以后读到它的人有帮助。

另外，我没有看到Mikel已经正确地回答了这个问题，尽管他没有包括trap命令，以减少使用Ctrl-C停止脚本后留下锁文件的机会。这就是完整的解