This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Defunct processes with 1.5.25-15; seemingly reproducible


2009/11/27 Dave Steenburgh <dave.steenburgh@gmail.com>
>
> cgf wrote:
> > Defunct processes are not necessarily indicative of a cygwin problem.
> > This could easily be a problem with gnuplot.
>
> Given the sum of my own limited knowledge of the problem at hand (in
> summary: every program involved is in my local cygwin directory), I
> figured it was best to ask here first.
>
> Dave Steenburgh wrote:
> > $ ps
> > ? ? ?PID ? ?PPID ? ?PGID ? ? WINPID ?TTY ?UID ? ?STIME COMMAND
> > ...
> > ? ? 4164 ? ?1288 ? ?7684 ? ? ? 5504 ? ?6 1003 23:49:20 <defunct>
> > ? ? 5392 ? ?3224 ? ?5984 ? ? ? 6100 ? ?5 1003 23:49:06 <defunct>
> > ? ? 1452 ? ?5240 ? ?5984 ? ? ? 8104 ? ?5 1003 23:49:06 <defunct>
> > ? ? 5240 ? ?3224 ? ?5984 ? ? ? 4532 ? ?5 1003 23:49:06 <defunct>
> > ...
> >
> ...
> > The PIDs seem to be the same every time this happens. ?Specifically, I
> > have seen 5240 and 1452 every time. ?Whether that's significant, I
> > don't know.
>
> Now, this is interesting... ?I killed those defunct processes with
> process explorer, and subsequently confirmed via ps, task manager, and
> process explorer that they were no longer running. ?I began another
> session with gnuplot, and this time there are three:
>
> $ ps
> ...
> ? ? 5240 ? ?3224 ? ?5984 ? ? ? 4532 ? ?5 1003 23:49:06 <defunct>
> ? ? 4164 ? ?1288 ? ?7684 ? ? ? 5504 ? ?6 1003 23:49:20 <defunct>
> ? ? 5392 ? ?3224 ? ?5984 ? ? ? 6100 ? ?5 1003 23:49:06 <defunct>
> ...
>
> For each of those, the entire row is identical to a row in my previous
> message. ?Since I started the session around 14:00, and the last
> output file's modification timestamp is 17:21, I'd say the timestamps
> for those three processes are not reliable. ?Is it possible that the
> original defunct processes were never truly killed? ?If so, can they
> be killed without rebooting?
>
Those defunct function will disapear after parent process exist in *nix.
To avoid this condition, try to handle SIGCHLD and call wait/waitpid to
free resources used by child process

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]