[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --] Hi everybody I've observed the following situation: root 490 0.0 0.0 13004 1596 ? S Nov05 0:00 s6-supervise lxe root 2738 0.6 0.0 0 0 ? Zsl Nov05 251:13 [lxe] <defunct> So you see a zombie process. What is the expected behaviour of s6-supervise here? I would expect, that this case is solved immediatly by s6-supervise and a new process is spawned. The observed behaviour was, that no new process was spawned and even s6-svc -r didn't respawn a process. Best Regards Oli -- Automatic-Server AG ••••• Oliver Schad Geschäftsführer Turnerstrasse 2 9000 St. Gallen | Schweiz www.automatic-server.com | oliver.schad@automatic-server.com Tel: +41 71 511 31 11 | Mobile: +41 76 330 03 47 [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
>Hi everybody
>
>I've observed the following situation:
>
>root 490 0.0 0.0 13004 1596 ? S Nov05 0:00 s6-supervise lxe
>root 2738 0.6 0.0 0 0 ? Zsl Nov05 251:13 [lxe] <defunct>
>
>So you see a zombie process. What is the expected behaviour of
>s6-supervise here? I would expect, that this case is solved immediatly
>by s6-supervise and a new process is spawned.
>
>The observed behaviour was, that no new process was spawned and even
>s6-svc -r didn't respawn a process.
Hi Oli,
There is no indication that the zombie lxe process is a direct child
of s6-supervise. What does 's6-svstat /run/service/lxe' say?
If that lxe process was s6-supervise's child, s6-supervise should
definitely reap the zombie immediately and spawn a new lxe process;
failing to do so would be a bug that has, to my knowledge, never
happened. There is definitely something else at play here.
--
Laurent