On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
> >Looking at the code, you're checking for zombie status before MTT kills the
> >proc. Am I reading that right?
> I don`t think the order matters, if process is not Zombie yet
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> >Looking at the code, you're checking for zombie status before MTT kills
> the proc. Am I reading that right?
>
I don`t think the order matters, if process is not Zombie yet and about to
be killed by MTT later - it is a good flow.
On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
> What protection do you mean? Check that /proc/pid/status exists? It is done
> in Grep()
Ah, excellent -- I hadn't noticed that.
> We observe that process which was launched by mtt and hangs (mtt detect
> timeout and starts do_command procedure
Hi Jeff,
What protection do you mean? Check that /proc/pid/status exists? It is done
in Grep()
We observe that process which was launched by mtt and hangs (mtt detect
timeout and starts do_command procedure), later enters into "defunct" state.
The mtt sends email that process hangs and when
Mike --
Please protect this code better; MTT is also run on Solaris and OS X.
Also, can you describe more fully the case where zombies are being left behind
by MTT?
On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:44 AM, wrote:
> Author: miked (Mike Dubman)
> Date: 2013-02-24 01:44:31 EST (Sun, 24 Feb 2013)
> New Revi
