Re: CPU hogs ignoring SIGTERM (unkillable processes)

[Andreas Schwab]

"Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hello,
>
> today I've discovered a programming error in one of my programs (that's fixed 
> already). When trying to replace the binary, I found out that the processes seem 
> unaffected by a plain "kill": They just continue to consume CPU. However, a "kill 
> -9" terminates them. ist that intended behavior? I guess not. Here are some facts:

Are you sure it doesn't block or ignore the signal?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@xxxxxxx
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/