Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:11:16 +0100
From: DervishD <lkml@dervishd.net>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mru@inprovide.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: is killing zombies possible w/o a reboot?
Message-ID: <20041110091116.GF29302@DervishD>
Mail-Followup-To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mru@inprovide.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20041104211138.GB25290@DervishD> <41915353.1070507@tmr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <41915353.1070507@tmr.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Organization: DervishD
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1925
Lines: 42

    Hi Bill :)

 * Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> dixit:
> >    Probably it won't do. If the zombies are there due to a signal
> >delivery problem, sending a SIGCHLD to the parent will (probably)
> >solve the problem. But the common case is that the parent is screwed
> >up or simply so badly programmed that the only way of getting rid of
> >the zombies is to kill the parent...
> Wait a minute, in another message you just suggested that a SIGCHLD to 
> init would cause the status to be reaped.

    I don't consider init the parent of such processes. It just
'adopts' them when the real parent doesn't care for them. I was
talking, in the paragraph above, about the *real* parent. I don't see
any contradiction, although sending SIGCHLD to a program that has not
waited for a children is risky: if the programmer was so clueless
that children were not waited for in the first place, chances are
that SIGCHLD handling is damaged, too.

> >    Anyway I suppose that sending the SIGCHLD won't do any harm so it
> >may be worth trying.
> It won't hurt init, but some processes do use the SIGCHLD to trigger a 
> wait(), which might hang the parent.

    If a parent does 'wait()' instead of 'waitpid', that's lazy
programming. The signal won't hurt anyway: if the parent blocks (bug
in the program), then a 'kill -9' is the correct medication (it's
what I use for buggy programs), the children are reparented to init
and correctly handled (because a good init should, IMHO, use waitpid
instead of wait). Let's say that sending SIGCHLD is 'mostly harmless'
;))

    Ra?l N??ez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.dervishd.net & http://www.pleyades.net/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/