Kevin Ott wrote:

> It doesn't make sense that zombie processes would take up anything more than 
> a few bits (possibly a bit  more) somewhere if you understand what exactly 
> they are. Zombie processes are just processes that have finished doing 
> everything they need to do.  The only reason they're still around (even 
> though they're not, the result of their execution is stored along with a few 
> things and the process just sits idle) is because their parent process hasn't 
> checked to "reap" the child process yet (hence the term "zombie  process", 
> the process is actually dead, but it partially isn't treated as such since 
> the parent still needs to get information from  it). Since the process isn't 
> actually active it wouldn't make sense for it to be taking up CPU cycles (if 
> it is given a cycle, it will just pass it off), memory (it's done executing, 
> there's nothing left to store in memory except the result), locks (again, 
> nothing is running if it's holding a lock there's a problem), or anything 
> else of that nature.

Thank you Kevin that makes it perfectly clear to me :)

Reply via email to