Re: CPU hogs ignoring SIGTERM (unkillable processes)

[Andreas Schwab]

"Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 15 Nov 2004 at 14:39, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/