From: "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Organization: Universitaet Regensburg, Klinikum
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:55:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: CPU hogs ignoring SIGTERM (unkillable processes)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <4199C06E.14572.3113A6@rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de>
In-reply-to: <jebrdzz0xh.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
References: <4198A766.28114.106DD7B@rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> (Ulrich Windl's message of "Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:56:05 +0100")
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1111
Lines: 28

On 15 Nov 2004 at 14:39, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> writes:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > today I've discovered a programming error in one of my programs (that's fixed 
> > already). When trying to replace the binary, I found out that the processes seem 
> > unaffected by a plain "kill": They just continue to consume CPU. However, a "kill 
> > -9" terminates them. ist that intended behavior? I guess not. Here are some facts:
> 
> Are you sure it doesn't block or ignore the signal?

Andreas,

I don't mess with signals (as said); the code just parses the same area of memory 
again and again (due to a programming error). As offered, you can get the binary 
and the sample command line to repeat (or at the least: try to) situation if you 
like. If I hadn't experienced it, I wouldn't believe myself ;-)

Regards,
Ulrich

-
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/