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 :)
