X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4B0F832D.5030405@columbus.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:43:41 -0500
From:	Paul McFerrin <pmcferrin AT columbus DOT rr DOT com>
Reply-To:	pmcferrin AT columbus DOT rr DOT com
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Dave Steenburgh <dave DOT steenburgh AT gmail DOT com>, Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Defunct processes with 1.5.25-15; seemingly reproducible
References:	<5a05e0e60911261052w2e60586cxe7a90d02b4cf6e0f AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5a05e0e60911262123g762a172sa02913109e2f27bd AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<5a05e0e60911262123g762a172sa02913109e2f27bd@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

A <defunct> process is not necesarily the real "problem".  All <defunct> 
process are processes that their parent has NOT done a wait(2) yet.  
Since these <defunct> processes have called exit(2), they must hang 
around until a wait(2) is completed so that the exit status can be 
returned to the parent.

    You need to understand more of the parent/child relationship before
    you can pass blame, if any.



Dave Steenburgh wrote:
> 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
>>     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?
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>   

--
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

- Raw text -