Re: Unkillable process
"Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces.
> Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to
> be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean
I think Unix designers were having mixed feelings about "kill"; "kill
-15", killing me softly... ha, just like a song, ...killing me softly
with his words ...killing me softly with his songs...
> up on the way out. SIGKILL is nonmaskable, and a process *can't*
> perform cleanup or garbage collection even if it wants to.
I see; so the memory that once was used, wouldn't be returned back to
the OS, right?
> Most zombies are waiting for a resource to close. Hitting the other end
> of the resource (parent or child) generally does same.
So basically, if that happened, it just means that the other side was
not yet exiting. (?)
Really mean...
> This is a case where you may have to shut down. Sometimes you can get
> the buggers if you shoot at 'em enough ways though.
Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 <progname>, to no avail.
BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit?
I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the
machine, rebooting was the only option.
Oki
Reply to: