Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:20:22 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why page-in a SIGKILL-ed process? Message-ID: <200510221220.23073@aldan> In-Reply-To: <20051022122429.GC39000@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <200510211100.48429@aldan> <20051022122429.GC39000@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 22 October 2005 08:24 am, Peter Jeremy wrote: = >17850 mi 1 -16 0 4158M 1118M wdrain 1 0:06 6.10% vim = > = >The question is: Why bother with paged-out parts of the process, when = >it is already doomed by SIGKILL? = wdrain appears to be associated with file I/O rather than paging = (though I may be wrong here). Is it possible that vim had started = core-dumping before you SIGKILL'd it? I've seen problems on other = OS's where core-dumping processes couldn't be killed and caused = significant performance degradation if they were very large. Well, indeed, there was a core-dump too. The reason I thought this was swap-related is because prior to settling on `wdrain', the process was in `pfault' for a few moments... You are, probably, right -- it was dumping the vim's core, when I started killing it. As for the performance degradation during a core-dump, yes, this definetely is not a FreeBSD-specific problem... Can't this be interrupted, though, by SIGKILL-ing the dying process? Thanks! -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510221220.23073>