A process isn't "killed with SIGHUP" -- at least, not in the strict sense of the word. Rather, when the connection is dropped, the terminal's controlling process (in this case, Bash) is sent a hang-up signal*, which is commonly abbreviated the "HUP signal", or just SIGHUP.
Now, when a process receives a signal, it can handle it any way it wants**. The default for most signals (including HUP) is to exit immediately. However, the program is free to ignore the signal instead, or even to run some kind of signal handler function.
Bash chooses the last option. Its HUP signal handler checks to see if the "huponexit" option is true, and if so, sends SIGHUP to each of its child processes. Only once its finished with that does Bash exit.
Likewise, each child process is free to do whatever it wants when it receives the signal: leave it set to the default (i.e. die immediately), ignore it, or run a signal handler.
Nohup only changes the default action for the child process to "ignore". Once the child process is running, however, it's free change its own response to the signal.
This, I think, is why some programs die even though you ran them with nohup:
- Nohup sets the default action to "ignore".
- The program needs to do some kind of cleanup when it exits, so it installs a SIGHUP handler, incidentally overwriting the "ignore" flag.
- When the SIGHUP arrives, the handler runs, cleaning up the program's data files (or whatever needed to be done) and exits the program.
- The user doesn't know or care about the handler or cleanup, and just sees that the program exited despite nohup.
This is where "disown" comes in. A process that's been disowned by Bash is never sent the HUP signal, regardless of the huponexit option. So even if the program sets up its own signal handler, the signal is never actually sent, so the handler never runs. Note, however, that if the program tries to display some text to a user that's logged out, it will cause an I/O error, which could cause the program to exit anyway.
* And, yes, before you ask, the "hang-up" terminology is left over from UNIX's dialup mainframe days.
** Most signals, anyway. SIGKILL, for instance, always causes the program to terminate immediately, period.
Best Answer
Based on the problem statement of the question, IMHO I do not see any reason for using
background
orforeground
. All you care is to find a process which is running in background so that you can kill it.Run
ps -ef | grep parameter3
to find processes which hasparameter3
in the process name. You can adapt thegrep
to uniquely identify a process, given you don't have two processes with exactly same process name.Once you have it, just do
kill -9 PID
and that process will be killed. So no need for bringing that process to the foreground for killing it.Hope this helps.