5828
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
5886
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 2: | Line 2: |
== How can I ensure that only one instance of a script is running at a time (mutual exclusion)? == We need some means of '''mutual exclusion'''. One easy way is to use a "lock": any number of processes can try to acquire the lock simultaneously, but only one of them will succeed. |
== How can I ensure that only one instance of a script is running at a time (mutual exclusion, locking)? == We need some means of ''mutual exclusion''. One way is to use a "lock": any number of processes can try to acquire the lock simultaneously, but only one of them will succeed. |
Line 18: | Line 17: |
fi}}} | fi }}} |
Line 20: | Line 20: |
This example '''does not work''', because there is a time window between checking and creating the file. Assume two processes are running the code at the same time. Both check if the lockfile exists, and both get the result that it does not exist. Now both processes assume they have acquired the lock -- a disaster waiting to happen. We need an atomic check-and-create operation, and fortunately there is one: {{{mkdir}}}, the command to create a directory: | This example '''does not work''', because there is a RaceCondition: a time window between checking and creating the file, during which other programs may act. Assume two processes are running this code at the same time. Both check if the lockfile exists, and both get the result that it does not exist. Now both processes assume they have acquired the lock -- a disaster waiting to happen. We need an atomic check-and-create operation, and fortunately there is one: `mkdir`, the command to create a directory: |
Line 33: | Line 33: |
fi}}} | fi }}} |
Line 37: | Line 38: |
Instead of using {{{mkdir}}} we could also have used the program to create a symbolic link, {{{ln -s}}}. | Instead of using {{{mkdir}}} we could also have used the program to create a symbolic link, {{{ln -s}}}. A third possibility is to have the program delete a preexisting lock file with {{{rm}}}. The lock is released by recreating the file on exit. |
Line 52: | Line 53: |
trap "exit 2" 1 2 3 15 # terminate script when receiving signal | |
Line 61: | Line 61: |
fi}}} | fi }}} |
Line 63: | Line 64: |
This example is much better. There is still the problem that a ''stale'' lock could remain when the script is terminated with a signal not caught (or signal 9, SIGKILL), or could be created by a user (either accidentally or maliciously), but it's a good step towards reliable mutual exclusion. An example that remedies the "stale lock" problem (contributed by Charles Duffy) follows: | This example is much better. There is still the problem that a ''stale'' lock could remain when the script is terminated with a signal not caught (or signal 9, SIGKILL), or could be created by a user (either accidentally or maliciously), but it's a good step towards reliable mutual exclusion. Charles Duffy has [[/contrib|contributed an example]] that may remedy the "stale lock" problem. |
Line 65: | Line 66: |
''Are we sure this code's correct? There seems to be a discrepancy between the names LOCK_DEFAULT_NAME and DEFAULT_NAME; and it checks for processes in what looks to be a race condition; and it uses the Linux-specific /proc file system and the GNU-specific egrep -o to do so.... I don't trust it. It looks overly complex and fragile. And quite non-portable. -- GreyCat'' | If you're using a GNU/Linux distribution, you can also get the benefit of using flock(1). flock(1) ties a [[FileDescriptor]] to a lock file. There are multiple ways to use it; one possibility to solve the multiple instance problem is: |
Line 68: | Line 69: |
LOCK_DEFAULT_NAME=$0 LOCK_HOSTNAME="$(hostname -f)" |
exec 9>/path/to/lock/file if ! flock -n 9 ; then echo "another instance is running"; exit 1 fi # this now runs under the lock until 9 is closed (it will be closed automatically when the script ends) }}} |
Line 71: | Line 77: |
## function to take the lock if free; will fail otherwise function grab-lock { local PROGRAMNAME="${1:-$DEFAULT_NAME}" local PID=${2:-$$} ( umask 000; mkdir -p "/tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock" mkdir "/tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock/held" || return 1 mkdir "/tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock/held/${LOCK_HOSTNAME}--pid-${PID}" && return 0 || return 1 ) 2>/dev/null return $? } |
flock can also be used to protect only a part of your script, see the man page for more information. |
Line 84: | Line 79: |
## function to nicely let go of the lock function release-lock { local PROGRAMNAME="${1:-$DEFAULT_NAME}" local PID=${2:-$$} ( rmdir "/tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock/held/${LOCK_HOSTNAME}--pid-${PID}" || true rmdir "/tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock/held" && return 0 || return 1 ) 2>/dev/null return $? } ## function to force anyone else off of the lock function break-lock { local PROGRAMNAME="${1:-$DEFAULT_NAME}" ( [ -d "/tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock/held" ] || return 0 for DIR in "/tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock/held/${LOCK_HOSTNAME}--pid-"* ; do OTHERPID="$(echo $DIR | egrep -o '[0-9]+$')" [ -d /proc/${OTHERPID} ] || rmdir $DIR done rmdir /tmp/${PROGRAMNAME}-lock/held && return 0 || return 1 ) 2>/dev/null return $? } ## function to take the lock nicely, freeing it first if needed function get-lock { break-lock "$@" && grab-lock "$@" } }}} |
|
Line 117: | Line 82: |
I believe using {{{if (set -C; >$lockfile); then ...}}} is equally safe if not safer. The Bash source uses {{{open(filename, flags|O_EXCL, mode);}}} which should be atomic on almost all platforms (with the exception of some versions of NFS where mkdir may not be atomic either). I haven't traced the path of the flags variable, which must contain {{{O_CREAT}}}, nor have I looked at any other shells. I wouldn't suggest using this until someone else can backup my claims. --Andy753421 | ==== Alternative Solution ==== I believe using {{{if (set -C; : >$lockfile); then ...}}} is equally safe if not safer. The Bash source uses {{{open(filename, flags|O_EXCL, mode);}}} which should be atomic on almost all platforms (with the exception of some versions of NFS where mkdir may not be atomic either). I haven't traced the path of the flags variable, which must contain {{{O_CREAT}}}, nor have I looked at any other shells. I wouldn't suggest using this until someone else can backup my claims. --Andy753421 |
Line 123: | Line 90: |
==== Removal of locking mechanism ==== Shouldn't the example code blocks above include a `rm "$lockfile"` or `rmdir "lockdir"` directly after the `#...continue script` line? - AnthonyGeoghegan . The lock can't be safely removed while the script is still doing its work -- that would allow another instance to run. The longer example includes a `trap` that removes the lock when the script exits. ==== flock file descriptor uniqueness ==== The example uses file descriptor 9 with flock, i.e. exec 9>/path/to/lock/file if ! flock -n 9... Note, file descriptors are unique per-process. FD 0,1, and 2 are used for stdin,stdout, and stderr so picking a generally high value is sufficient. (source: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/pseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.aix.genprogc/doc/genprogc/fdescript.htm ) However, what if this file descriptor is already in use by a completely different process? Are we then locking on the file descriptor and not the lock file? How can we ensure we use something that is not already being used? |
|
Line 124: | Line 108: |
---- CategoryShell |
How can I ensure that only one instance of a script is running at a time (mutual exclusion, locking)?
We need some means of mutual exclusion. One way is to use a "lock": any number of processes can try to acquire the lock simultaneously, but only one of them will succeed.
How can we implement this using shell scripts? Some people suggest creating a lock file, and checking for its presence:
# locking example -- WRONG lockfile=/tmp/myscript.lock if [ -f "$lockfile" ] then # lock is already held echo >&2 "cannot acquire lock, giving up: $lockfile" exit 0 else # nobody owns the lock > "$lockfile" # create the file #...continue script fi
This example does not work, because there is a RaceCondition: a time window between checking and creating the file, during which other programs may act. Assume two processes are running this code at the same time. Both check if the lockfile exists, and both get the result that it does not exist. Now both processes assume they have acquired the lock -- a disaster waiting to happen. We need an atomic check-and-create operation, and fortunately there is one: mkdir, the command to create a directory:
# locking example -- CORRECT # Bourne lockdir=/tmp/myscript.lock if mkdir "$lockdir" then # directory did not exist, but was created successfully echo >&2 "successfully acquired lock: $lockdir" # continue script else echo >&2 "cannot acquire lock, giving up on $lockdir" exit 0 fi
Here, even when two processes call mkdir at the same time, only one process can succeed at most. This atomicity of check-and-create is ensured at the operating system kernel level.
Instead of using mkdir we could also have used the program to create a symbolic link, ln -s. A third possibility is to have the program delete a preexisting lock file with rm. The lock is released by recreating the file on exit.
Note that we cannot use mkdir -p to automatically create missing path components: mkdir -p does not return an error if the directory exists already, but that's the feature we rely upon to ensure mutual exclusion.
Now let's spice up this example by automatically removing the lock when the script finishes:
# POSIX (maybe Bourne?) lockdir=/tmp/myscript.lock if mkdir "$lockdir" then echo >&2 "successfully acquired lock" # Remove lockdir when the script finishes, or when it receives a signal trap 'rm -rf "$lockdir"' 0 # remove directory when script finishes # Optionally create temporary files in this directory, because # they will be removed automatically: tmpfile=$lockdir/filelist else echo >&2 "cannot acquire lock, giving up on $lockdir" exit 0 fi
This example is much better. There is still the problem that a stale lock could remain when the script is terminated with a signal not caught (or signal 9, SIGKILL), or could be created by a user (either accidentally or maliciously), but it's a good step towards reliable mutual exclusion. Charles Duffy has contributed an example that may remedy the "stale lock" problem.
If you're using a GNU/Linux distribution, you can also get the benefit of using flock(1). flock(1) ties a FileDescriptor to a lock file. There are multiple ways to use it; one possibility to solve the multiple instance problem is:
exec 9>/path/to/lock/file if ! flock -n 9 ; then echo "another instance is running"; exit 1 fi # this now runs under the lock until 9 is closed (it will be closed automatically when the script ends)
flock can also be used to protect only a part of your script, see the man page for more information.
Discussion
Alternative Solution
I believe using if (set -C; : >$lockfile); then ... is equally safe if not safer. The Bash source uses open(filename, flags|O_EXCL, mode); which should be atomic on almost all platforms (with the exception of some versions of NFS where mkdir may not be atomic either). I haven't traced the path of the flags variable, which must contain O_CREAT, nor have I looked at any other shells. I wouldn't suggest using this until someone else can backup my claims. --Andy753421
- Using set -C does not work with ksh88. Ksh88 does not use O_EXCL, when you set noclobber (-C). --jrw32982
Are you sure mkdir has problems with being atomic on NFS? I thought that affected only open, but I'm not really sure. -- BeJonas 2008-07-24 01:22:59
Removal of locking mechanism
Shouldn't the example code blocks above include a rm "$lockfile" or rmdir "lockdir" directly after the #...continue script line? - AnthonyGeoghegan
The lock can't be safely removed while the script is still doing its work -- that would allow another instance to run. The longer example includes a trap that removes the lock when the script exits.
flock file descriptor uniqueness
The example uses file descriptor 9 with flock, i.e.
exec 9>/path/to/lock/file
- if ! flock -n 9...
Note, file descriptors are unique per-process. FD 0,1, and 2 are used for stdin,stdout, and stderr so picking a generally high value is sufficient. (source: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/pseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.aix.genprogc/doc/genprogc/fdescript.htm )
However, what if this file descriptor is already in use by a completely different process? Are we then locking on the file descriptor and not the lock file? How can we ensure we use something that is not already being used?
For more discussion on these issues, see ProcessManagement.