From: Cliff P. <enk...@gm...> - 2005-05-22 06:17:50
|
OS: Debian Host kernel: 2.6.10, self-compiled, no SKAS patch, nothing else unusual. UML: 2.4.26-3um-1 Because of a misconfiguration I had to kill a UML instance, which didn't respond to mconsole cad or anything else. However, it appears to have left an unkillable "linux" process as follows: debian:~# ps aux | grep linux root 1224 0.2 9.9 32832 25512 ? T May21 3:01 linux (slave2) [(kernel thread)] =20 =20 =20 umid=3Dslave2 ubd0=3D/uml-files/slave2 ubd1=3D/uml-files/swap2 con=3Dpts con0=3Dfd:0,fd:1 eth0=3Dtuntap,,,10.10.10.10 kill 1224 and kill -9 1224 both return without affecting the task. When I try to start the UML-instance it complains about a *different* non-existant process: F_SETLK failed, file already locked by pid 1244 Failed to lock '/uml-files/slave2', err =3D 11 unable to open /uml-files/slave2 for validation Any ideas anyone? Help! Cheers, Cliff |
From: Rus F. <rg...@fs...> - 2005-05-22 06:25:21
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Cliff Pratt wrote: > OS: Debian > Host kernel: 2.6.10, self-compiled, no SKAS patch, nothing else unusual. > UML: 2.4.26-3um-1 > > Because of a misconfiguration I had to kill a UML instance, which > didn't respond to mconsole cad or anything else. However, it appears > to have left an unkillable "linux" process as follows: > You could try sending a SIGCONT to it to see if that kills it off Rus -- e: rg...@va... : t: 01635 281120 | skype: vaserv http://www.vxdedicated.com - Windows/Linux/FreeBSD Dedicated servers from $79/mo http://www.atwebhosting.com - Shared and Unmetered hosting accounts from $3.99/mo |
From: Cliff P. <enk...@gm...> - 2005-05-22 09:27:54
|
On 5/22/05, Rus Foster <rg...@fs...> wrote: > On Sun, 22 May 2005, Cliff Pratt wrote: >=20 > > OS: Debian > > Host kernel: 2.6.10, self-compiled, no SKAS patch, nothing else unusual= . > > UML: 2.4.26-3um-1 > > > > Because of a misconfiguration I had to kill a UML instance, which > > didn't respond to mconsole cad or anything else. However, it appears > > to have left an unkillable "linux" process as follows: > > > You could try sending a SIGCONT to it to see if that kills it off >=20 Thanks Rus, that did it. Cheers, Cliff |
From: Robin L. P. <rlp...@di...> - 2005-05-22 06:49:57
|
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 06:17:48PM +1200, Cliff Pratt wrote: > kill 1224 and kill -9 1224 both return without affecting the task. If kill -9, *as root*, does not kill a process, you have hit a kernel bug. Period. You should probably reboot. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ |
From: Cliff P. <enk...@gm...> - 2005-05-22 09:12:01
|
On 5/22/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlp...@di...> wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 06:17:48PM +1200, Cliff Pratt wrote: > > kill 1224 and kill -9 1224 both return without affecting the task. >=20 > If kill -9, *as root*, does not kill a process, you have hit a > kernel bug. Period. You should probably reboot. >=20 Ooo! OK, I'll check that I'm doing it correctly. Thanks, Cliff |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-05-23 18:05:41
|
On Sunday 22 May 2005 08:49, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 06:17:48PM +1200, Cliff Pratt wrote: > > kill 1224 and kill -9 1224 both return without affecting the task. > > If kill -9, *as root*, does not kill a process, you have hit a > kernel bug. Period. You should probably reboot. 2.6.10 has indeed a kernel bug in this situation. You should probably update the host to 2.6.11. However, kill -9 is not sufficient if you don't do, after, a kill -CONT. Definitely... Somebody argued it's a bug but Linux works this way, and I'm not in the standards world. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Skype user "PaoloGiarrusso" Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: Cliff P. <enk...@gm...> - 2005-05-24 02:58:36
|
On 5/24/05, Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> wrote: > On Sunday 22 May 2005 08:49, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 06:17:48PM +1200, Cliff Pratt wrote: > > > kill 1224 and kill -9 1224 both return without affecting the task. > > > > If kill -9, *as root*, does not kill a process, you have hit a > > kernel bug. Period. You should probably reboot. > 2.6.10 has indeed a kernel bug in this situation. You should probably upd= ate > the host to 2.6.11. >=20 > However, kill -9 is not sufficient if you don't do, after, a kill -CONT. > Definitely... Somebody argued it's a bug but Linux works this way, and I'= m > not in the standards world. >=20 Ah! Thanks. I stumbled on that solution in the end. Nice to have it confirmed though. Cheers, Cliff |