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
