Re: How to kill running process -- kill -9 has no effect

From: Douglas Clinton (see_my_sig_at_devnull.com)
Date: 11/10/03

  • Next message: Ashish: "Re: Tom's root boot creation problems to a newbie..." 
    Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:31:25 -0500

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:13:21 -0800, Robert Dodier wrote:

    > Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2003-11-07, Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote:
    >> > Kill -15 seems to get the really obstinate ones. I note
    >> > that top uses kill -15.
    >>
    >> Please read the man page for kill--signal 15, SIGTERM, may be blocked,
    >> but signal 9, SIGKILL, may not. If a process doesn't respond to KILL,
    >> there's a bigger problem.
    >
    > Hi, it's to OP again. The process in question is runnable
    > (status R, not D) and yet it does not die when kill -9 is issued.
    > What is the "bigger problem" to which you allude?
    >
    > Here is a possible scenario: the process has executed a system
    > call so actually the kernel is executing on its behalf. The process
    > has a pending SIGKILL but it can't be delivered until the system
    > call returns (right?). Thus the process can be runnable, using cpu
    > (since the cpu time used by the kernel on its behalf is credited
    > to the process, right?), and yet the process is not killed by kill -9.
    > Can someone comment on how realistic that is -- I've made a couple
    > of assumptions that I'm not entirely sure about.
    >
    > Assuming that there is a system call which is not returning for
    > some reason -- how can I find out what it is? The program in
    > question is installed and maintained by someone else so (e.g.)
    > recompiling with some different flags is not feasible.
    >
    > Thanks so much for your time. I appreciate your help.
    >
    > Robert Dodier

    use rsync to transfer the files instead of ssh.

    Good Luck 

    -- 
GNU/Linux is God
get used to it
declinton@sympatico.ca
Linux User # 276385
  • Next message: Ashish: "Re: Tom's root boot creation problems to a newbie..."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: ptrace bug in -rc2+
      ... This is a change that I explained when I posted the ptrace cleanup patches. ... could be doing things like mucking directly with its kernel stack. ... this even for SIGKILL. ... -9 the gdb and the process being debugged, but still have to kill -CONT the ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: How to kill running process -- kill -9 has no effect
      ... >> but signal 9, SIGKILL, may not. ... If a process doesn't respond to KILL, ... > call so actually the kernel is executing on its behalf. ... > (since the cpu time used by the kernel on its behalf is credited ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: How to kill running process -- kill -9 has no effect
      ... > but signal 9, SIGKILL, may not. ... If a process doesn't respond to KILL, ... What is the "bigger problem" to which you allude? ... (since the cpu time used by the kernel on its behalf is credited ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: How to kill running process -- kill -9 has no effect
      ... > but signal 9, SIGKILL, may not. ... If a process doesn't respond to KILL, ... What is the "bigger problem" to which you allude? ... (since the cpu time used by the kernel on its behalf is credited ...
      (comp.os.linux.questions)
    • Re: How to kill a respawning process
      ... > when the command got executed, it was killed with the help of kill -9. ... If it is really consuming CPU time, the process is NOT hanging in kernel ...
      (comp.unix.aix)