Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: CPU hogs ignoring SIGTERM (unkillable processes) | From | Andreas Schwab <> | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:42:41 +0100 |
| |
"Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> writes:
> 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);
That is not required. It could just as well inherit the setting from the parent.
Andreas.
-- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." - 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/
| |