This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: problems in Perl process management
Earlier topquoting somewhat reformated.
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:09:18AM +1000, Sonam Chauhan wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 04:24:56PM +1000, Sonam Chauhan wrote:
> > >Christopher -
> > >>Yes, if you send a "kill -9" to a pid that shows up in ps but is
> > >>associated with a non-cygwin process, it should work.
> > >
> > >So what me and Jurgen were discussing works, and you were wrong.
> > >Thanks for revisiting your point after your earlier rudeness.
I just reread the whole thread three times, and fail to detect any
rudeness from him. He did confess to being "flip", though. (I thought
it was just an attempt at humor.)
> > YJS?
> I don't understand this.
Me neither, nor http://cygwin.com/acronyms or the other sites linked
to there.
> > I felt the need to clarify after your observation about "kill -9" which
> > mentioned a "cygwin terminal" and did not appear to have any direct
> The Perl testcase in my first email showed I was calling "killfam 'KILL',
> $childpid". Jurgen replied he also wanted to know if this was possible and
> reported a similar problem killing grandchildren processes in Perl (but with
> Perl's built-in kill command). At this point, you entered the conversation
> and told him:
>
> > > I also notice that deeper forked processes (grandchildren)
> > > refuse to die.
> ...
> > You can't send cygwin (aka unix) signals to a windows proram.
>
> Which is wrong - we were talking about killing the Cygwin PID.
"we"? He wasn't responding to you, and I see nothing in Jurgen's
message to indicate he is talking about a situation involving *any*
cygwin programs; in fact, quite the contrary.
When I
> corrected you, thinking that maybe you were talking about non-Cygwin Windows
> programs, your initial reply was this one-liner:
>
> > > This should be possible if the ActiPerl Windows executable was
> > > executed from a Cygwin terminal -- 'ps' shows it running and should kill
>
> > > 'kill -9' it.
> > I guess I forgot my signature.
> > ...
> > Cygwin Co-Project Leader
>
> Which isn't any help. You later corrected yourself.
>
> > Since I didn't recognize your name, and you seemed to be trying to
> > inform me about code that I wrote,
> No. As mentioned in my *first* email, the problem is probably Perl's
> Proc::ProcessTable module. Unless you wrote the Perl XS interface for
> Proc::ProcessTable (or something similar that controls it's behavior), this
> does not concern your code which probably behaves just fine.
>
> Coming back to actual issue.... I referenced a discussion earlier on this
> list where a similar problem was discussed. I was hoping to hear from the
> people originally discussing it (Reini, Yitzchak, etc.) If you can help with
> this issue - great.
>
> Regards,
> Sonam Chauhan
> --
> Electronic Commerce, Corporate Express Australia Ltd.
> Phone: +61-2-9335-0725, Email: sonam.chauhan@ce.com.au
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2005 1:18 AM
> > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: problems in Perl process management
> >
> >
> > YJS?
> >
> > I felt the need to clarify after your observation about "kill -9" which
> > mentioned a "cygwin terminal" and did not appear to have any direct
> > bearing on the statement "However, I also notice that deeper forked
> > processes (grandchildren) refuse to die. This script is only run using
> > ActiveState Perl". If someone is talking about "fork" on windows in a
> > cygwin mailing list then they must be talking about starting processes
> > using cygwin so mentioning a "cygwin terminal" doesn't make a lot of
> > sense in that context. You don't need to start processes from bash
> > for them to be able to receive signals.
> >
> > If they are saying that they are unable to kill processes then, my
> > previous (unstated) assumption that they are using winpids rather than
> > cygwin pids seems likely. Either that or they are using SIGTERM and the
> > signal is blocked, in which case your "kill -9" would work. I don't
> > know why something which expects to be killed via SIGTERM would block
> > SIGTERM but I guess it is a possibility.
> >
> > Since I didn't recognize your name, and you seemed to be trying to
> > inform me about code that I wrote, I included my signature in the
> > message to clarify.
> >
> > cgf
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/