Re: Unkillable process with firefox
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:00:15 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes: According to Novell, that means it is unkillable short of a reboot. But maybe I can supply the i/o it is waiting for... trouble is I cannot find it. Doesn't show up in top at all. I see no instances of firefox at all. Allegedly it is in the foreground, so shouldn't I be able to see it? How did you run the firefox process, from a console? I don't really remember for sure, but the ps wwaux output mentioned a forum on the winamp web pages so I was probably reading the forum. :-) Maybe is that I did not express myself correctly... I wanted to know how did you launch firefox, that is, if it was called from a console or script (firefox http://www.somesite.com;), using an icon from the desktop...). It's not usual to see firefox hang in that (badly) way and leaving the process in such state. There is an article at Firefox KB commenting the possible causes of a hang which can leave the process open and preventing the normal operation of the browser: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_hangs If you experience the same error again, try by following the given tips to find out the culprit. Its hard to believe that on linux there can be a process that will prevent user from accessing the web browser, and that it cannot be killed short of a reboot. Yep, that things can happen and sometimes there is no other way but a reboot. I wonder if `telinit 1' would have done the job? To late to try now since a reboot has gotten rid of the nasty thing. Going to init 1 will stop the X server but I doubt it can kill a process that sigkill cannot even terminate :-? Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.10.20.15.07...@gmail.com
Re: Unkillable process with firefox
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes: How did you run the firefox process, from a console? I don't really remember for sure, but the ps wwaux output mentioned a forum on the winamp web pages so I was probably reading the forum. :-) Maybe is that I did not express myself correctly... I wanted to know how did you launch firefox, that is, if it was called from a console or script (firefox http://www.somesite.com;), using an icon from the desktop...). It was not from a script so had to be just browsing. Thanks for the lead at firefox kb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5wfl2rb@newsguy.com
Unkillable process with firefox
I have a situation I had not seen before where when I try to start firefox I'm told its already running. ps wwaux reveals: (all on one line - wrapped for mail) reader2617 2.1 6.9 804920 143440 pts/8 Ds+ Oct18 \ 31:58 /usr/bin/firefox http://forums.winamp.com/login.php?a\ =pwdu=141665i=7a4f7ceb7d50ee8a95868beb02620c8b53802eae So some kind of evil process firefox is involved in. as root: # kill -KILL 2617 But again `ps wwaux' reveals the same line. How does one go about kill a process that even root cannot kill with a signal 9? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8739ep9k4w@newsguy.com
Re: Unkillable process with firefox
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:38:23 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: I have a situation I had not seen before where when I try to start firefox I'm told its already running. ps wwaux reveals: (all on one line - wrapped for mail) reader2617 2.1 6.9 804920 143440 pts/8 Ds+ Oct18 \ 31:58 /usr/bin/firefox http://forums.winamp.com/login.php?a\ =pwdu=141665i=7a4f7ceb7d50ee8a95868beb02620c8b53802eae Ds+ means the process is: D → uninterruptible sleep (usually IO) s → session leader + → run in foreground So some kind of evil process firefox is involved in. as root: # kill -KILL 2617 But again `ps wwaux' reveals the same line. How does one go about kill a process that even root cannot kill with a signal 9? This is what Google gives: Processes in an Uninterruptible Sleep (D) State http://www.novell.com/support/viewContent.do?externalId=7002725sliceId=1 Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.10.19.13.56...@gmail.com
Re: Unkillable process with firefox
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes: Ds+ means the process is: D → uninterruptible sleep (usually IO) s → session leader + → run in foreground So some kind of evil process firefox is involved in. as root: # kill -KILL 2617 But again `ps wwaux' reveals the same line. How does one go about kill a process that even root cannot kill with a signal 9? This is what Google gives: Processes in an Uninterruptible Sleep (D) State http://www.novell.com/support/viewContent.do?externalId=7002725sliceId=1 OK, whats the trick? How do you find this stuff so quick...? According to Novell, that means it is unkillable short of a reboot. But maybe I can supply the i/o it is waiting for... trouble is I cannot find it. Doesn't show up in top at all. I see no instances of firefox at all. Allegedly it is in the foreground, so shouldn't I be able to see it? Its hard to believe that on linux there can be a process that will prevent user from accessing the web browser, and that it cannot be killed short of a reboot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ty758324@newsguy.com
Re: Unkillable process with firefox
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:32:35 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes: (...) How does one go about kill a process that even root cannot kill with a signal 9? This is what Google gives: Processes in an Uninterruptible Sleep (D) State http://www.novell.com/support/viewContent.do?externalId=7002725sliceId=1 OK, whats the trick? How do you find this stuff so quick...? I made a deal with a daemon (a linux daemon, I mean) }:-) No, seriously, when a process cannot be terminated with a kill signal is because something unusual happens... so it's time to look at the process state, read man ps and perform a search. That's all. According to Novell, that means it is unkillable short of a reboot. But maybe I can supply the i/o it is waiting for... trouble is I cannot find it. Doesn't show up in top at all. I see no instances of firefox at all. Allegedly it is in the foreground, so shouldn't I be able to see it? How did you run the firefox process, from a console? Its hard to believe that on linux there can be a process that will prevent user from accessing the web browser, and that it cannot be killed short of a reboot. Yep, that things can happen and sometimes there is no other way but a reboot. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.10.19.15.00...@gmail.com
Re: Unkillable process with firefox
On 10/19/2011 09:38 AM, Harry Putnam wrote: I have a situation I had not seen before where when I try to start firefox I'm told its already running. ps wwaux reveals: (all on one line - wrapped for mail) reader2617 2.1 6.9 804920 143440 pts/8 Ds+ Oct18 \ 31:58 /usr/bin/firefox http://forums.winamp.com/login.php?a\ =pwdu=141665i=7a4f7ceb7d50ee8a95868beb02620c8b53802eae So some kind of evil process firefox is involved in. as root: # kill -KILL 2617 But again `ps wwaux' reveals the same line. How does one go about kill a process that even root cannot kill with a signal 9? Have you consulted 'man kill' ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e9efaa5.4060...@gmail.com
Re: Unkillable process with firefox
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes: According to Novell, that means it is unkillable short of a reboot. But maybe I can supply the i/o it is waiting for... trouble is I cannot find it. Doesn't show up in top at all. I see no instances of firefox at all. Allegedly it is in the foreground, so shouldn't I be able to see it? How did you run the firefox process, from a console? I don't really remember for sure, but the ps wwaux output mentioned a forum on the winamp web pages so I was probably reading the forum. Its hard to believe that on linux there can be a process that will prevent user from accessing the web browser, and that it cannot be killed short of a reboot. Yep, that things can happen and sometimes there is no other way but a reboot. I wonder if `telinit 1' would have done the job? To late to try now since a reboot has gotten rid of the nasty thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hb34ziww@newsguy.com
Re: [users] Re: Unkillable process
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 05:38:55PM -0700, Eric G. Miller (egm2@jps.net) wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:23:13AM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote: also sprach Karsten M. Self (on Tue, 22 May 2001 11:29:18PM -0700): No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server. one of the reasons why i wouldn't run mysql for any reason in the world! unless you don't need a true database backend. There's nothing special about mysql in this respect. Any process that has some uncompleted I/O which is abrubtly forced to exit with SIGKILL will leave their files in an inconsistent state. SIGKILL can not be caught or handled by the application. Don't use it unless you really have to or you know or don't care how it might affect any files. Always better to try SIGINT first. A transactional database should be able to recover from an unexpected shutdown by rolling back the uncommitted transactions. MySQL sacrifices robustness for speed in this regard. Transactional databases won't save you from, e.g.: disk damage or malicious intent. Still, if you need a fast SQL interface, it's a good system, and its featureset is a strong argument against gratuitously kill -9'ing arbitrary processes. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ pgpETTLO84JTb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unkillable process
on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:31:26PM -0500, Andrei Ivanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then unkillable processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes that it runs), which prevented me running xemacs again as that user. Now it's mozilla .9. I have 2 processes sitting there doing nothing but preventing me starting netscape as a user. ps aux shows: scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin The process is in an uninterruptible sleep state. This is almost the same thing as a zombie state. Likely it's communicating (or trying to communicate) with a parent or child. I usually try to track down process relationships with 'pstree', then try killing related process with 15, 1, 2, and, if all else fails, 9. True unkillable zombies are rather rare. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ pgpr17h4GgD55.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unkillable process
Karsten M. Self wrote: I usually try to track down process relationships with 'pstree', then try killing related process with 15, 1, 2, and, if all else fails, 9. killall -9 program name would be much more efficient, right? True unkillable zombies are rather rare. Usually, it's pretty difficult; even though they are already half-dead. BTW, speaking about killing processes... Once I had a daemon that couldn't be killed because the client program that once connected to it didn't close the ports properly. So the daemon was just there sitting, waiting for a time-out. But it didn't happen. Magically, kill -9 didn't work; the daemon materialized as a zombie, yet it was a strong one. It was pretty amusing... how long would a TCP connection time out given that any other side doesn't close the connection (and none is reading the ports)? Or, it just simply wouldn't time out? Oki
Re: Unkillable process
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 11:33:45AM +0700, Oki DZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Karsten M. Self wrote: I usually try to track down process relationships with 'pstree', then try killing related process with 15, 1, 2, and, if all else fails, 9. killall -9 program name would be much more efficient, right? Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces. Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean up on the way out. SIGKILL is nonmaskable, and a process *can't* perform cleanup or garbage collection even if it wants to. True unkillable zombies are rather rare. Usually, it's pretty difficult; even though they are already half-dead. Most zombies are waiting for a resource to close. Hitting the other end of the resource (parent or child) generally does same. BTW, speaking about killing processes... Once I had a daemon that couldn't be killed because the client program that once connected to it didn't close the ports properly. So the daemon was just there sitting, waiting for a time-out. But it didn't happen. Magically, kill -9 didn't work; the daemon materialized as a zombie, yet it was a strong one. This is a case where you may have to shut down. Sometimes you can get the buggers if you shoot at 'em enough ways though. It was pretty amusing... how long would a TCP connection time out given that any other side doesn't close the connection (and none is reading the ports)? Or, it just simply wouldn't time out? Oki -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ pgpV4hC7xoflV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unkillable process
Petr == Petr Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Petr netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid Petr of them, signal 9 is not maskable. My experience, there are only two ways of killing netscape: 1. from netscape or the window manager close function. 2. kill -9. Last I tried, if I pressed Ctrl+C at the console running netscape in the foreground, or if I try to kill it with -9, then it crashed and can only be killed with -9. So it seems that the cleanup routine that intercepts the signal is buggy, and never returns. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unkillable process
Karsten M. Self wrote: Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces. Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean I think Unix designers were having mixed feelings about kill; kill -15, killing me softly... ha, just like a song, ...killing me softly with his words ...killing me softly with his songs... up on the way out. SIGKILL is nonmaskable, and a process *can't* perform cleanup or garbage collection even if it wants to. I see; so the memory that once was used, wouldn't be returned back to the OS, right? Most zombies are waiting for a resource to close. Hitting the other end of the resource (parent or child) generally does same. So basically, if that happened, it just means that the other side was not yet exiting. (?) Really mean... This is a case where you may have to shut down. Sometimes you can get the buggers if you shoot at 'em enough ways though. Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 progname, to no avail. BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit? I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the machine, rebooting was the only option. Oki
Re: Unkillable process
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:11:48PM +0700, Oki DZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Karsten M. Self wrote: Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces. Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean I think Unix designers were having mixed feelings about kill; kill -15, killing me softly... ha, just like a song, ...killing me softly with his words ...killing me softly with his songs... Reminds me of what she said whennevermind. up on the way out. SIGKILL is nonmaskable, and a process *can't* perform cleanup or garbage collection even if it wants to. I see; so the memory that once was used, wouldn't be returned back to the OS, right? No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server. Most zombies are waiting for a resource to close. Hitting the other end of the resource (parent or child) generally does same. So basically, if that happened, it just means that the other side was not yet exiting. (?) Really mean... Something like. This is a case where you may have to shut down. Sometimes you can get the buggers if you shoot at 'em enough ways though. Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 progname, to no avail. Look for parents/children. The zombies themselves won't hurt anything unless they fill your process table. BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit? I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the machine, rebooting was the only option. Maybe. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ pgp0Mzy4UZqba.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unkillable process
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 11:29 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server. I second this one from personal experience! Very bad... lucky I did it before I actually started working with the thing, because it led to a reinstall. Twice! -- - David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unkillable process
Oki DZ wrote: Karsten M. Self wrote: Using kill -9 on a process means you may have to clean up the pieces. Signals 15, 1, and 2 (TERM, HUP, and INT), are generally considered to be polite requests to jobs to get the hell over it already, but to clean I think Unix designers were having mixed feelings about kill; kill -15, killing me softly... ha, just like a song, ...killing me softly with his words ...killing me softly with his songs... up on the way out. SIGKILL is nonmaskable, and a process *can't* perform cleanup or garbage collection even if it wants to. actually kill is not really kill, it just send signals, some of them ask or force process to die... I see; so the memory that once was used, wouldn't be returned back to the OS, right? AFAIK the OS takes care of all/most of the resources - file are closed (but not saved), memory is released etc... if you see frozen netscape, before killing it check the free memory and check the memory after you killed -9 netscape, lot of memory is freed (not sure if all) This is a case where you may have to shut down. Sometimes you can get the buggers if you shoot at 'em enough ways though. Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 progname, to no avail. BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit? I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the machine, rebooting was the only option. check if it's a zombie - if it's a zombie it was already killed, just waits for something to be really unloaded from memory (usually it doesn't take long). IIRC one reason an application is zombie is that its parent waits for return value (which is sort of held by zombie, waitin for parent to process the info or something like that). generally, if you see a zombie, just wait. sooner or later they should go away... erik
Re: Unkillable process
Karsten M. Self wrote: on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:11:48PM +0700, Oki DZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ... BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit? I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the machine, rebooting was the only option. you cannot unload the driver as long as it is used... erik
Re: Unkillable process
on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:35:37PM -0700, Erik Steffl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Oki DZ wrote: ... Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 progname, to no avail. BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit? I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the machine, rebooting was the only option. check if it's a zombie - if it's a zombie it was already killed, just waits for something to be really unloaded from memory (usually it doesn't take long). IIRC one reason an application is zombie is that its parent waits for return value (which is sort of held by zombie, waitin for parent to process the info or something like that). From _UNIX Power Tools_ (O'Reilly Associates): You cannot kill zombies; they are already dead. What is a zombie? I hear you ask. Why should a dead process stay around? Dead processes stick around for two principal reasons. The lesser of these is that they provide a sort of context for closing open file descriptors, and shuting down other resources (memory, swap space, and so forth). This generally happens immediately, and the process remails only for its major purpose: to hold onto its name and exit status. So, it's sort of an inheritance/probate process for Unix processes, except that the body doesn't go away until the will has been properly executed the entire estate distributed. It's dead, it's not doing anything, it just wants its final bequests fulfilled. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ pgplKUjfCZAxk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unkillable process
IIRC this is a know issue with kernel 2.4.3. D process can't be killed : D mean UNinterruptible sleep and kill send a signal which wake-up target process if they are in an interruptible state.. Upgrade to 2.4.4 even if there is some drawbacks with it (there's a fork issue), or wait for 2.4.5 which should be better. Christophe On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:06:40 Karsten M. Self wrote: on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:35:37PM -0700, Erik Steffl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Oki DZ wrote: ... Whoa, I tried many times, kill -9, killall -9 progname, to no avail. BTW, if I unload the NIC driver (along with lo), would the daemon exit? I was thinking about it, but since I was remote logging in to the machine, rebooting was the only option. check if it's a zombie - if it's a zombie it was already killed, just waits for something to be really unloaded from memory (usually it doesn't take long). IIRC one reason an application is zombie is that its parent waits for return value (which is sort of held by zombie, waitin for parent to process the info or something like that). From _UNIX Power Tools_ (O'Reilly Associates): You cannot kill zombies; they are already dead. What is a zombie? I hear you ask. Why should a dead process stay around? Dead processes stick around for two principal reasons. The lesser of these is that they provide a sort of context for closing open file descriptors, and shuting down other resources (memory, swap space, and so forth). This generally happens immediately, and the process remails only for its major purpose: to hold onto its name and exit status. So, it's sort of an inheritance/probate process for Unix processes, except that the body doesn't go away until the will has been properly executed the entire estate distributed. It's dead, it's not doing anything, it just wants its final bequests fulfilled. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ -- Christophe Barbé Software Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group 42-46, rue Médéric - 92110 Clichy - France phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01 http://www.lineo.com
Re: Unkillable process
Oki DZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karsten M. Self wrote: I usually try to track down process relationships with 'pstree', then try killing related process with 15, 1, 2, and, if all else fails, 9. killall -9 program name would be much more efficient, right? 'killall' is a very dangerous command to get used to using. If you ever find yourself on a Solaris machine, killall really does mean that; it ignores the argument and kills all processes (possibly apart from init). Since you're probably root at the time you're doing this sort of thing, you'll find yourself with an unusable system. For that reason, I always advise people to forget that killall exists, even if it's a handy short cut on Linux. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unkillable process
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:35:37PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: | Oki DZ wrote: ... | I see; so the memory that once was used, wouldn't be returned back to | the OS, right? | | AFAIK the OS takes care of all/most of the resources - file are closed | (but not saved), memory is released etc... if you see frozen netscape, | before killing it check the free memory and check the memory after you | killed -9 netscape, lot of memory is freed (not sure if all) It has to free all the memory, if the kernel is worth anything. If it didn't free all the memory then you would run out after netscape crashed a few times. Just imagine what your uptime would be like then! Any decent kernel/system will take care to release all resources a process was using after it is no longer running. This includes memory, files, etc. (This isn't to say that the files, etc, will necessarily have the values you expect them to have; just that they will be released (closed for files) and other processes will be able to gain access) -D
Re: Unkillable process
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:45:46PM -0500, Petr [Dingo] Dvorak wrote: netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid of them, signal 9 is not maskable. But if the process is blocked on an uninterruptable system call, it will never return to receive the signal. This is a known Unix deadlock that happens rarely. Disk reads and writes are uninterruptable, I believe. Perhaps this person is experiencing I/O troubles. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier, TD12, SKY Tel: 613-765-4699 (ESN: 39-54699) Optical Networks, Nortel Networks, SDE Pegasus ...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount of nerd-like effort. -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix Nortel Linux User's Group Ottawa: (internal) http://nlug.ca.nortel.com
Re: Unkillable process
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:28:44AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Since you're probably root at the time you're doing this sort of thing, you'll find yourself with an unusable system. For that reason, I always advise people to forget that killall exists, even if it's a handy short cut on Linux. I prefer to forget that Solaris exists :p
Re: Unkillable process
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Michael Soulier wrote: MS netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid of them, MS signal 9 is not maskable. MS MS But if the process is blocked on an uninterruptable system call, it will MS never return to receive the signal. This is a known Unix deadlock that happens MS rarely. Disk reads and writes are uninterruptable, I believe. Perhaps this MS person is experiencing I/O troubles. Well, if the nutscrape was hung on uninterruptable system call, the whole machine would be probably deadlocked, if the child doesn't want to die, kill the parent :), it will take the child down with it. Dingo. ).|.( '.`___'.` ' `(~)' ` -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-ooO-=(_)=-Ooo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Petr [Dingo] Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coder - Purple Dragon MUD pdragon.org port -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-[ 369D93 ]=- Oxymoron: Microsoft Works -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [users] Unkillable process
also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500): scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead process, it doesn't listen to anything anymore. there is no way you can remove it without a reboot. the process is in uniterruptible sleep state (implying it's doing some kind of i/o), but it's definitely not interested in handling signals (even SIGKILL, which you're the kernel isn't supposed to let you ignore). had plenty of them, never succeeded without a reboot. but what do you care? just leave them? they aren't eating anything away. martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- prepBut nI vrbLike adjHungarian! qWhat's artThe adjBig nProblem? -- alec flett @netscape
Re: [users] Re: Unkillable process
also sprach Karsten M. Self (on Tue, 22 May 2001 11:29:18PM -0700): No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server. one of the reasons why i wouldn't run mysql for any reason in the world! unless you don't need a true database backend. martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --hughes mearns
Re: [users] Unkillable process
%% MaD dUCK [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: md also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500): scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin md this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead md process, it doesn't listen to anything anymore. It's possible, under severe error conditions, to get processes which won't respond to kill -9 on any kernel. The KILL signal may not be blocked by the process in user space, but that doesn't mean that it can't be blocked by the kernel in kernel space, and it often is. Simply whacking a process within the kernel at the instant you kill -9 would leave all sorts of resources unreleased, etc. etc. Remember that when you kill a user process the kernel cleans up all its memory, open file descriptors, etc. after it. If you kill a process within the kernel, who cleans up after that? Thus, the kernel doesn't allow processes to just disappear no matter what state they may be in within the kernel itself. -- --- Paul D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]HASMAT--HA Software Methods Tools Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional. --Mad Scientist --- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
Re: [users] Unkillable process
also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500): scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead process, it doesn't listen to anything anymore. there is no way you can remove it without a reboot. the process is in uniterruptible sleep state (implying it's doing some kind of i/o), but it's definitely not interested in handling signals (even SIGKILL, which you're the kernel isn't supposed to let you ignore). had plenty of them, never succeeded without a reboot. but what do you care? just leave them? they aren't eating anything away. Thanks. Problem is this: now that I have a dead mozilla process in the background, netscape doesnt want to run without manual interaction (when I run netscape as that user, I'll have to manually kill a process that pops up because netscape saw a mozilla process already running). It's not bad, but it gets kinda messy after a while. Andrei -- First there was Explorer... Then came Expedition. This summer Coming to a street near you.. Ford Exterminator. -- Andrei Ivanov http://arshes.dyndns.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12402354 --
Re: Unkillable process
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:35:37PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: doesn't take long). IIRC one reason an application is zombie is that its parent waits for return value (which is sort of held by zombie, waitin for parent to process the info or something like that). You've got it backwards. You get zombies when the parent _doesn't_ wait, so the kids just hang around forever, just in case the parent wants to come back and get their exit status someday. -- That's not gibberish... It's Linux. - Byers, The Lone Gunmen Geek Code 3.1: GCS d? s+: a- C++ UL++$ P+ L+++ E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w---$ O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv b+ DI D G e* h+ r y+
Re: [users] Unkillable process
On Wed, 23 May 2001, MaD dUCK wrote: also sprach Andrei Ivanov (on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:31:26PM -0500): scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin this is a straight-forward failure of the linux kernel. it's a dead I believe this was corrected in kernel 2.4.4 as I got such process when running 2.4.3 on a SMP machine. BTW, only a reboot will kill such processes, as said bellow by MaD dUCK. process, it doesn't listen to anything anymore. there is no way you can remove it without a reboot. the process is in uniterruptible sleep state (implying it's doing some kind of i/o), but it's definitely not interested in handling signals (even SIGKILL, which you're the kernel isn't supposed to let you ignore). had plenty of them, never succeeded without a reboot. but what do you care? just leave them? they aren't eating anything away. martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- prepBut nI vrbLike adjHungarian! qWhat's artThe adjBig nProblem? -- alec flett @netscape -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mario O.de MenezesMany are the plans in a man's heart, but IPEN-CNEN/SP is the Lord's purpose that prevails http://curiango.ipen.br/~mario Prov. 19.21
Re: Unkillable process
Is it just me or does it all sound like we are getting involved in some mass slaughter of children and parents :) Tomaas Ortega Hey, does anybody else hear that giant sucking sound? That's my will to live www.dematerialised.com - coming soon www.dematerialised.com/zeitgeist/ - Original Message - From: Petr [Dingo] Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian-User debian-user@lists.debian.org Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:54 PM Subject: Re: Unkillable process On Wed, 23 May 2001, Michael Soulier wrote: MS netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid of them, MS signal 9 is not maskable. MS MS But if the process is blocked on an uninterruptable system call, it will MS never return to receive the signal. This is a known Unix deadlock that happens MS rarely. Disk reads and writes are uninterruptable, I believe. Perhaps this MS person is experiencing I/O troubles. Well, if the nutscrape was hung on uninterruptable system call, the whole machine would be probably deadlocked, if the child doesn't want to die, kill the parent :), it will take the child down with it. Dingo. ).|.( '.`___'.` ' `(~)' ` -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-ooO-=(_)=-Ooo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Petr [Dingo] Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coder - Purple Dragon MUD pdragon.org port -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-[ 369D93 ]=- Oxymoron: Microsoft Works -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [users] Re: Unkillable process
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:23:13AM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote: also sprach Karsten M. Self (on Tue, 22 May 2001 11:29:18PM -0700): No. Your memory's going to be released. But your files might be scrambled. I would *not* 'kill -9' my mysqld server. one of the reasons why i wouldn't run mysql for any reason in the world! unless you don't need a true database backend. There's nothing special about mysql in this respect. Any process that has some uncompleted I/O which is abrubtly forced to exit with SIGKILL will leave their files in an inconsistent state. SIGKILL can not be caught or handled by the application. Don't use it unless you really have to or you know or don't care how it might affect any files. Always better to try SIGINT first. -- Eric G. Miller egm2@jps.net
Re: Unkillable process
If you don't keep an eye out, the penguins WILL kill without regard to humanity! Always watch the penguins, always. . . On Wednesday 23 May 2001 16:11, Tomaas Ortega wrote: Is it just me or does it all sound like we are getting involved in some mass slaughter of children and parents :) Tomaas Ortega Hey, does anybody else hear that giant sucking sound? That's my will to live -- Jaye Inabnit\ARS ke6sls/TELE: USA-707-442-6579\/A GNU-Debian linux user Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEB: http://www.qsl.net/ke6sls ICQ: 12741145 If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. SHOUT JUST FOR FUN. Free software, in a free world, for a free spirit. Please Support freedom!
Unkillable process
'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then unkillable processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes that it runs), which prevented me running xemacs again as that user. Now it's mozilla .9. I have 2 processes sitting there doing nothing but preventing me starting netscape as a user. ps aux shows: scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin and I cant kill it with any signal. Short of restarting machine I dont have any way to get rid of them. Is there a better solution or an explanation why this happens? TIA, Andrei -- First there was Explorer... Then came Expedition. This summer Coming to a street near you.. Ford Exterminator. -- Andrei Ivanov http://arshes.dyndns.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12402354 --
Re: Unkillable process
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:31:26PM -0500, Andrei Ivanov wrote: 'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then unkillable processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes that it runs), which prevented me running xemacs again as that user. Now it's mozilla .9. I have 2 processes sitting there doing nothing but preventing me starting netscape as a user. ps aux shows: scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin and I cant kill it with any signal. Short of restarting machine I dont have any way to get rid of them. Is there a better solution or an explanation why this happens? # kill -9 pid_number doesn't work? What happens when you kill X with Ctrl-alt-backspace? Both programs you mentioned are running in X. kent -- From seeing and seeing the seeing has become so exhausted First line of The Panther - R. M. Rilke
Re: Unkillable process
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Andrei Ivanov wrote: AI 'm running a 2.4.3 kernel with 2.2.1 glibc. Every now and then AI unkillable AI processes popup on my system (usually something that didnt shut down AI properly). It was xemacs once (and a ton of different processes that it AI runs), which prevented me running xemacs again as that user. Now it's AI mozilla .9. I have 2 processes sitting there doing nothing but preventing AI me starting netscape as a user. ps aux shows: AI scorpio 7314 0.0 3.8 2 4876 tty1 DMay10 0:00 AI /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin AI AI and I cant kill it with any signal. Short of restarting machine I dont AI have any way to get rid of them. Is there a better solution or an AI explanation why this happens? netscape is known doing this, 'kill -9 PID' should get rid of them, signal 9 is not maskable. Dingo. ).|.( '.`___'.` ' `(~)' ` -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-ooO-=(_)=-Ooo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Petr [Dingo] Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coder - Purple Dragon MUD pdragon.org port -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-[ 369D93 ]=- Oxymoron: Microsoft Works -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ps not listing PIDs (was Unkillable Process?)
In case anyone is interested, I figured out why I couldn't list the PID of the app (Wine/Agent) that crashed my X server. I had logged out of the original console from which I started X, and it seems that when I do that, the PIDs of some of the processes associated with X will no longer display when I use the ps command. Here is the output from ps before logging out of the original console: $ ps w a PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND 100 S1 S0:00 /usr/sbin/gpm -m /dev/ttyS1 -t mman -l a-zA-Z0-9_.:~/\300-\ 116 3 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty3 117 4 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty4 118 5 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty5 119 6 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty6 192 2 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty2 218 S0 S0:00 /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyS0 38400 defaultroute 360 1 S0:00 xterm -geometry 80x24+135+105 -ls 361 1 S0:00 xterm -geometry 80x20-0-0 -ls 345 1 S0:00 -bash 351 1 S0:00 xinit /home/g7/.xinitrc -- -auth /home/g7/.Xauthority 359 1 S0:00 twm 362 p0 S0:00 -bash 363 p1 S0:00 -bash 368 p1 R0:00 ps w a And here is the output of ps after logging out of the original console: $ ps w a PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND 100 S1 S0:00 /usr/sbin/gpm -m /dev/ttyS1 -t mman -l a-zA-Z0-9_.:~/\300-\ 116 3 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty3 117 4 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty4 118 5 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty5 119 6 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty6 192 2 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty2 218 S0 S0:00 /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyS0 38400 defaultroute 371 1 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty1 362 p0 S0:00 -bash 363 p1 S0:00 -bash 372 p1 R0:00 ps w a Notice that PIDs 360, 361, 345, 351 and 359 disappeared from the list (I think 345 was the original console). But those processes were still running and I was still able to kill one of my xterms (PID 361) even though it no longer was displayed by ps. Is this normal behavior? Is is a bug? Is it at all interesting? Shouldn't PIDs of all running processes be displayed by ps even if the user who started it logs out of the console from which it was started? Just wondering, David Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ps not listing PIDs (was Unkillable Process?)
use ps x the processes lost their controling termals. ps x shows them so you will see ? instead of numbers [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, David Densmore wrote: In case anyone is interested, I figured out why I couldn't list the PID of the app (Wine/Agent) that crashed my X server. I had logged out of the original console from which I started X, and it seems that when I do that, the PIDs of some of the processes associated with X will no longer display when I use the ps command. Here is the output from ps before logging out of the original console: $ ps w a PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND 100 S1 S0:00 /usr/sbin/gpm -m /dev/ttyS1 -t mman -l a-zA-Z0-9_.:~/\300-\ 116 3 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty3 117 4 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty4 118 5 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty5 119 6 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty6 192 2 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty2 218 S0 S0:00 /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyS0 38400 defaultroute 360 1 S0:00 xterm -geometry 80x24+135+105 -ls 361 1 S0:00 xterm -geometry 80x20-0-0 -ls 345 1 S0:00 -bash 351 1 S0:00 xinit /home/g7/.xinitrc -- -auth /home/g7/.Xauthority 359 1 S0:00 twm 362 p0 S0:00 -bash 363 p1 S0:00 -bash 368 p1 R0:00 ps w a And here is the output of ps after logging out of the original console: $ ps w a PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND 100 S1 S0:00 /usr/sbin/gpm -m /dev/ttyS1 -t mman -l a-zA-Z0-9_.:~/\300-\ 116 3 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty3 117 4 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty4 118 5 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty5 119 6 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty6 192 2 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty2 218 S0 S0:00 /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyS0 38400 defaultroute 371 1 S0:00 /sbin/getty 38400 tty1 362 p0 S0:00 -bash 363 p1 S0:00 -bash 372 p1 R0:00 ps w a Notice that PIDs 360, 361, 345, 351 and 359 disappeared from the list (I think 345 was the original console). But those processes were still running and I was still able to kill one of my xterms (PID 361) even though it no longer was displayed by ps. Is this normal behavior? Is is a bug? Is it at all interesting? Shouldn't PIDs of all running processes be displayed by ps even if the user who started it logs out of the console from which it was started? Just wondering, David Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Unkillable Process?
I use Wine 0.0.980315-1 on my hamm system to run Forte's Agent newsreader, which frequently crashes, locking up my X server. When this happens, I go back to a console and use the ps a command to identify the PID then kill it, which usually returns my system to normal. Just a little while ago it happened again, but when I typed ps a I did not see the Wine/Agent PID even though Agent was still frozen in my X screen. I tried various arguments to ps in addition to a, but was unable to obtain the PID and could not kill Wine/Agent, so I finally resorted to a reboot to restore order. I realize this act is sacrilege, forgive me and show me the error of my ways. Does anyone know why I was unable to list the PID? And how do I kill the X server when it locks up? Thank you, David Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unkillable Process?
to kill xserver try ctrl+alt+backspace works for me! jd?
