[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Zombie subprocesses
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: Zombie subprocesses |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:45:46 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 |
On 11/24/2012 12:46 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Is leaving zombie processes here and there really worse than the
> conflict with GTK-launched subprocesses?
My impression is yes, as the zombies can exhaust process slots,
which means the user won't be able to run subprocesses.
This could happen pretty quickly on a system where the number
of processes that a single user can run is limited to a small
number, for quota or other reasons (ulimit -u). On the system
I happened to be running on when I was typing this message,
the limit was 100 processes per user. This is pretty low,
but it's not ridiculously low.
In contrast, the conflict with GTK-launched subprocesses means
that GTK won't report proper exit statuses and will chatter
misleading messages to the user. This is a real bug, sometimes
fairly serious, but still, it's typically less serious than not being
able to run subprocesses at all.
- Zombie subprocesses, Harald Hanche-Olsen, 2012/11/23
- Re: Zombie subprocesses, Paul Eggert, 2012/11/23
- Re: Zombie subprocesses, Ken Brown, 2012/11/23
- Re: Zombie subprocesses, Chong Yidong, 2012/11/24
- Re: Zombie subprocesses, Paul Eggert, 2012/11/24
- Re: Zombie subprocesses, Harald Hanche-Olsen, 2012/11/24
- Re: Zombie subprocesses, Paul Eggert, 2012/11/26
Re: Zombie subprocesses, James Cloos, 2012/11/24