X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=bLIS8UgIkFOdxHm4 uhNJcdePSZlP6oTjDNpQ05WK9X9W5EYuxxomk0zVROPn3leLYu5Uon0wzlphts6k tCccE2+SEQ3DGmjHaR76HhqTo12f5F6OPJftNgs5eOLnfnIYKgvVy/kHsRrocovZ eHWH9PlKpVEJqbw15MFpKQU7h+k= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=sISQeYZ9z9B84LDsiBbWHR 3DFyU=; b=ooNhmt+S1jdpDCVSnc+O1qx3TicJEO/mpwYCBb92BmEDey8a4/1ezO noYW9pzLH3s0iEbLEMUByR4R5DXRUmNVqj8o3Yiwkqqjaz87UeC1UfGko6pfVhUr LEz+35blM4QgV7LGbdXGsRZN6xZpVUUvScAFA7UEQ6vw5tbFMV9MA= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:U*mark, doh, zombie, d'oh! X-HELO: m0.truegem.net Subject: Re: Problem with zombie processes To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <58A3598F DOT 2020405 AT maxrnd DOT com> From: Mark Geisert Message-ID: <58A773C9.1080905@maxrnd.com> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:06:01 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik Bray wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Mark Geisert wrote: Please don't quote raw email addresses. We try to avoid feeding spammers. >> Erik Bray wrote: >>> >>> The attached Python script >> >> ?? > > D'oh! Here is the script. It at least demonstrates the problem. > [...] Thanks! Running this script repeatedly on my system (Win7, 2 cores / 4 HT threads) showed no differences between your Test 1 and Test 2. Each Test concludes in one of three ways, seemingly randomly: (1) read of /proc//stat succeeds and process status is displayed, (2) read fails with Python IOError, (3) read apparently succeeds but there's no process data displayed. An strace of your script shows Python itself is calling wait4() to reap the child process. So, as Doug suggested on another thread, the script's actions are just subject to the whims of process scheduling and vary from run to run. ..mark -- 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