Re: Options to stop processes that can't be killed -9 other than reboot

[Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15Sep2011 07:59, mark <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| Cameron Simpson wrote:
| >On 14Sep2011 15:45, Josh Miller <joshua@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >| On 09/14/2011 03:37 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
| >| >Then it is not a zombie. Zombies are exited processes which still have their
| >| >parent, but the parent has not (yet) collected their exit status.
| <snip> |
| >| In my experience, zombie processes have a parent process ID of 1
| >| (init) by the time I discover them.
| >
| >It's not my experience, and indeed the man page you quote suggests it
| >should not be your experience, since process 1 _is_ init. To be a zombie
| >with process 1 as your parent is at best a very very transient thing,
| >since init collects all its children almost instantly; indeed, aside
| >from mediating runlevels this is init's major function.
| <snip>
| Well, no. When I see zombies, they've already gone to a parent
| process of 1, and they are *not* transient: if they go away, it's a
| long time - we're talking hours or days; more often, it takes a
| reboot.

Please: show me a cut/paste of a real world ps of this. I really want to
see it.
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking
them.   - Jane Austen

-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list