Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6893 comp.unix.wizards:8305 comp.unix.microport:598 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!gorodish!guy From: guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: Trouble killing processes in SysV/AT Message-ID: <52288@sun.uucp> Date: 6 May 88 17:18:44 GMT References: <3950@killer.UUCP> <3951@killer.UUCP> <216@obie.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.uucp Lines: 16 > | You ask about processes that refuse to die. (Calling them "immortal" > | confers a positive aura that is probably undeserved. Normally these > | processes are in a useless state, and might better be referred to as > | members of the "undead".) > > The canonical term for such a process is "zombie." Wrong. A "zombie" is a process that has already completed dying, but whose corpse hasn't been picked up by its parent yet. The corpse has already been picked clean (it has no address space, for instance). This is a misuse of the term "zombie", but we're stuck with it. A *live* process that refuses to die, which is what was originally being discussed, is a different matter. A very common cause of this is a driver that blocks for a very long time - possibly forever - with a priority less than or equal to PZERO.