To check for the presence of a process, you can use the third solution. This solution is effective for most processes, except debuggers or processes being debugged in a debugger. To implement this solution, you must use a signal that does not necessitate process interaction, such as signal (9). In case you wish to obtain a core dump of the process, and if your system is configured for it, you may use signal (11) instead.
Given that the process has been halted, indicated by
in the state output of
, any form of signal handling becomes impossible. Therefore, a signal that does not necessitate process interaction, such as signal
(9), must be utilized, as demonstrated below.
kill -9 11394
In case you desire to obtain a core dump of the process, without any requirement of process interaction, you may use
(11), provided your system is configured for it.
Based on my assumption, the process must have been halted at this point since a monitored process is supposed to have the capability of managing signals that can potentially cause it to stop.
kill -9 11394
, you can terminate the process in a crude and abrupt manner, leading to the following outcome:
The Linux/UNIX command line has three crucial signals for “killing” processes.
The process can be terminated by the kernel without notifying it, which can cause data loss. This kill signal is the most dangerous and extreme one, and should only be utilized when the process appears to be unstoppable.
Numerous signals are available to experiment with, and I am confident that others will enumerate them. However, in my experience, the signal that proves to be the most efficient is
kill -hup 11394
In many instances, this method proves effective when the application is unresponsive to other signals. As an alternative, you could use
, but be aware that it may result in side effects as it abruptly terminates the application without allowing for proper cleanup.