[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Finished threads remain as zombies on 2.6?

Another datapoint - I have a 2nd 164LX, runs Debian testing instead of 
unstable (libc version 2.3.2.ds1-2) - I built the same kernel ( that 
is running on the Debian unstable system.

Threads clean up just fine, so I'm going to hazard a guess that it is not the 
kernel at this time - porbably something with pthreads in the unstable dist.?


On Sunday 28 August 2005 09:12 pm, Tyson Whitehead wrote:
> Humm.  I'm running 2.6.12 and libc 2.3.5-4 as well.  You program does the
> exact same thing (i.e., leaves zombie).
> I wrote it up a C version to be sure (attached for anyone else wants to
> check it).  The exact samething happens.  Even detaching the threads does
> not help.
> Both programs work fine on x86.  There is also some weirdness going on
> with /proc.  The x86 box (same kernel version) make a master entry for the
> process (i.e., /proc/xxxx) and put the threads under the tasks subdirector
> (i.e., /proc/xxxx/task/yyyy).  The Alpha box puts them all under process
> entries (i.e., /proc/xxxx).
> Weired.  Is pthread implemented significantly different on the Alpha (i.e.,
> spawning full process instead of light weight ones), or is the kernel just
> messed up?
> Later  -T
> PS:  compile with "gcc -o threadtest threadtest.c -lpthread"

Reply to: