[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: is killing zombies possible w/o a reboot?
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 09:33, bert hubert wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 07:51:39AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> But I'd tried to run gnomeradio earlier to listen to the
>> elections,
>Depressing enough.
>> I'd tried to kill the zombie earlier but couldn't.
>> Isn't there some way to clean up a &^$#^#@)_ zombie?
>Kill the parent, is the only (portable) way.

The parent would have been the icon. It opened its usual sized small
window, but never did anything to it. I clicked on closing the
window, but 10 seconds later the system asked me if I wanted to kill
it as it wasn't responding. I said yes, the window disappeared, but
kpm said gomeradio was still present as process 8162, and that wasn't
killable. Funny thing is, on the reboot, it automaticly self
restored and ran just fine.

I consider this as one of linux's achilles heels. Such a hung and
dead process can be properly disposed of by a primitive os called os9
because it keeps track of all resources in tables in the kernel
memory space. Issueing a kill procnumber removes the process from
the exec queue, reclaims all its memory to the system free memory
pool, and removes it from the IRQ service tables if an entry exists
there. Near instant, total cleanup, nothing left, in about 250
microseconds max. 1.79 mhz cpu's aren't quite instant :)

Lets just say that I think having to reboot because of a zombie that
has resources locked up, and have the reboot fubared by it too,
aren't exactly friendly actions.

I fully realise that linux has a much more complex method of
allocating resources, but doesn't it *know* exactly what resources
have been passed out to each process?

And why is there no entry from the kill function into that resource
management portion of the kernel so that this could also be done by
the linux kernel, say with a "kill --total procnumber"?

Seems like a heck of a good question to me since an os written to run
on a 64k machine in 1981, and expanded to run on a 128K to 2 megabyte
machine in 1986 can do it just fine. Even if that process is still
running and spitting out data to its parent window/shell! Or if its
crashed and scribbled over all its memory, makes no difference to
os9. You (root) wants it gone, fine, its gone.

Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.28% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.086 / U:9.228 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site