The word "subreaper" is used in some answers. Searching Google also turn up entries where the word is "just used".

How can I understand what a "subreaper" is?

up vote 42 down vote accepted

This was implemented to the Linux kernel 3.4 as a flag of the system call prctl().

From the prctl(2) manpage:

[...] A subreaper fulfills the role of init(1) for its descendant processes. Upon termination of a process that is orphaned (i.e., its immediate parent has already terminated) and marked as having a subreaper, the nearest still living ancestor subreaper will receive a SIGCHLD signal and be able to wait(2) on the process to discover its termination status.

A process can define itself as a subreaper with prctl(PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER). If so, it's not init (PID 1) that will become the parent of orphaned child processes, instead the nearest living grandparent that is marked as a subreaper will become the new parent. If there is no living grandparent, init does.

The reason to implement this mechanism was that userspace service managers/supervisors (like upstart, systemd) need to track their started services. Many services daemonize by double-forking and get implicitly re-parented to PID 1. The service manager will no longer be able to receive the SIGCHLD signals for them, and is no longer in charge of reaping the children with wait(). All information about the children is lost at the moment PID 1 cleans up the re-parented processes. Now, a service manager process can mark itself as a sort of "sub-init", and is now able to stay as the parent for all orphaned processes created by the started services. All SIGCHLD signals will be delivered to the service manager.

In Linux, a daemon is typically created by forking twice with the intermediate process exiting after forking the grandchild. This is a common technique to avoid zombie processes. The init script calls a child. That child forks again and thus exits immediately. The grandchild will be adopted by init, which continuously calls wait() to collect the exit status of his children to avoid zombies. With the concept of subreapers, the userspace service manager now becomes the new parent, instead of init.

  • So, can I think that the process "reap" the "sub"-process? Or, the process is a "sub"reaper because the "main"reaper is init? Just trying to think how the term was coined. Thanks for the answer! – kenchew Dec 21 '15 at 10:32
  • 2
    Following the Linux kernel 3.4 link above, the commit comment for this implementation has further details. (Awed by the details hidden in a git comment) – kenchew Dec 21 '15 at 10:59

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.