Hi Cameron and other guys, thank you. Actually, all those defunct processes are remaining from shell scripts ran from CRON. The scripts are not interactivelly so they don't as for any input.
I think my linux is not running properly, I don't suspect about my programs, but I could double-check them if we pick up evidences about their bad functioning. Let's supose that my programs are ok - they're really not interactive. What could cause such a problem?(the arising of so many defunct processes) And I like you to observe that init is not turning itself PPID of any of those defunct processes - all them continue to have their original parents who, in turn, are children of the CRON process. Thank for any help, bruno. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cameron Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 1:27 AM Subject: Re: too many DEFUNCT processes > On 14:15 27 Sep 2002, Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 13:05, Bruno Negrao wrote: > | > I have a RedHat 6.2 and it isn't working fine. Look at how many defunct > | > processes are hanging around: > | ... > | > Does somenone could explain why is it happening? > | > And the worst is that the parent processes of all this defunct childs still > | > remain in the system - with a T (stopped) status. > | > | It's happening because the parent is stopped ;) > > Yep. > > | Give the parent a CONT(inue) signal to make it start again: > | kill -CONT <parent-pid> > > May not help. The common cause of a stopped process is a nondaemonised > process in the background of an interactive job control shell. Such jobs > are often set up by the shell to stop (via SIGTSTP) if they produce output > to avoid cluttering things, or if they try to read from the terminal. > > Looks, to me, like Bruno fired up something interactively and backgrounded > it, or fired up something quite interactive in the background. bruno, > care to elaborate? > > | If that doesn't fix it, consider killing the parent with signal 9, and > | restarting it. > | If the parent is the init process (I've seen it happen once, and was > | probably related to glibc upgrade), you'll have to sync and power off to > | reboot. > > It's clearly not init from the listing. > -- > Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ > > [...] post-block actions should be allowed everywhere, not just on > subroutines. The ALWAYS keyword was agreed upon as a good way of doing > this, although POST was also suggested. This lead to the semi-inevitable > rehash of the try- catch exception handling debate. According to John > Porter, "There is no try, there is only do. :-)" > - from the perl6 development discussion > > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
