X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5a05e0e60911262123g762a172sa02913109e2f27bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5a05e0e60911261052w2e60586cxe7a90d02b4cf6e0f AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> 	 <5a05e0e60911262123g762a172sa02913109e2f27bd AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:54:03 +0800
Message-ID: <f4d6f44b0911262154k754dea22s4ad9b1faee4b8b@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Defunct processes with 1.5.25-15; seemingly reproducible
From: Huang Bambo <bambo DOT huang AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

2009/11/27 Dave Steenburgh <dave DOT steenburgh AT gmail DOT 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
> > =A0 =A0 =A0PID =A0 =A0PPID =A0 =A0PGID =A0 =A0 WINPID =A0TTY =A0UID =A0=
 =A0STIME COMMAND
> > ...
> > =A0 =A0 4164 =A0 =A01288 =A0 =A07684 =A0 =A0 =A0 5504 =A0 =A06 1003 23:=
49:20 <defunct>
> > =A0 =A0 5392 =A0 =A03224 =A0 =A05984 =A0 =A0 =A0 6100 =A0 =A05 1003 23:=
49:06 <defunct>
> > =A0 =A0 1452 =A0 =A05240 =A0 =A05984 =A0 =A0 =A0 8104 =A0 =A05 1003 23:=
49:06 <defunct>
> > =A0 =A0 5240 =A0 =A03224 =A0 =A05984 =A0 =A0 =A0 4532 =A0 =A05 1003 23:=
49:06 <defunct>
> > ...
> >
> ...
> > The PIDs seem to be the same every time this happens. =A0Specifically, I
> > have seen 5240 and 1452 every time. =A0Whether that's significant, I
> > don't know.
>
> Now, this is interesting... =A0I killed those defunct processes with
> process explorer, and subsequently confirmed via ps, task manager, and
> process explorer that they were no longer running. =A0I began another
> session with gnuplot, and this time there are three:
>
> $ ps
> ...
> =A0 =A0 5240 =A0 =A03224 =A0 =A05984 =A0 =A0 =A0 4532 =A0 =A05 1003 23:49=
:06 <defunct>
> =A0 =A0 4164 =A0 =A01288 =A0 =A07684 =A0 =A0 =A0 5504 =A0 =A06 1003 23:49=
:20 <defunct>
> =A0 =A0 5392 =A0 =A03224 =A0 =A05984 =A0 =A0 =A0 6100 =A0 =A05 1003 23:49=
:06 <defunct>
> ...
>
> For each of those, the entire row is identical to a row in my previous
> message. =A0Since 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. =A0Is it possible that the
> original defunct processes were never truly killed? =A0If 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