Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:57:13 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: an unkillable process (again) Message-ID: <200012221757.eBMHvDB21729@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <200012220202.eBM22oc75560@cwsys.cwsent.com> from Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group at "Dec 21, 2000 06:02:25 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group once stated: =In message <200012202226.eBKMQf100632@misha.privatelabs.com>, Mikhail =Teterin writes: => Here it is: => => 425 mi -18 0 45308K 144K swwrt 4:25 0.10% 0.10% communicator => -l => => For some bizarre reasons of its own, Netscape went into swap-writing => binge. Why did it make it immune to ``kill -9''? = =Then it appears that swwrt has a higher priority than kill has, which =it should have. Rather confusing... kill -9 does not deliver any signals to the process. It is there to kill. Shouldn't it have the higher priority? Also, anything that prevents root from killing a process is not right, IMHO. This leaves "reboot" as the only option left, which WILL kill everybody anyway, resulting in all possible data losses, etc. that the "unkillability" tries to prevent. -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012221757.eBMHvDB21729>