From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 8 12:45:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09200 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:45:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from acroal.com (firewall0.acroal.com [209.24.61.154]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09173 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:44:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@acroal.com) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by acroal.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA04993; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:44:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@acroal.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:44:26 -0800 (PST) From: "J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect" To: Andrew Atrens cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dealing with zombies In-Reply-To: <199712082025.MAA07048@hub.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As I recall under linux setting up a signal handler that excutes waitpid() is not necessary if you are set (by default) to ignore SIGCHLD. On 8 Dec 1997, Andrew Atrens wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm eval'ing Wordperfect-7.0-for-Linux on `FreeBSD 3.0-971012-SNAP' and am > seeing lots of zombies: > > 1446 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > 1460 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpgmk5) > 1461 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpspell) > 1462 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpspell) > 1467 ?? Z 0:00.00 (wpp7) > 1471 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpspell) > 1472 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpspell) > 1473 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpspell) > 1513 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > 1514 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > 1531 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > 1532 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > 1533 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > 1543 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > 1551 ?? Z 0:00.00 (xwpthes) > > As I understand, the root cause is that (xwp) is failing to reap dead children. > However, the children *do* get reaped when I exit xwp... it seems that > as long as xwp is running, no reaping is done, and the zombies accumulate...:( > > What I'm wondering is: > > i. Is this a fault/feature of the app (xwp), the linux emulation code, or > the kernel (in a larger sense), and > ii. are there any *good* workarounds. ( I seem to recall some discussion about > a tunable kernel parm for auto-reap or some such thing? ) > > > Cheers, > > Andrew. > >