Why SIGKILL signal not terminate a process?

[Frantisek Hanzlik]

Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> On 29.11.2013 20:41, Frantisek Hanzlik wrote:
>> On my Fedora 19 i686 I see weird thing - when killing processes (by
>> commands as:
>>
>> killall -9 kactivitymanagerd
>> killall -9 gam_server
>> killall -9 kded4
>> killall -9 systemd
>> killall -9 atril
>>
>> or with PID:
>>
>> kill -9 1 1322 10612 10619
>>
>> ), then processes stay running - they are not zombies (for PID=1 be
>> zombie perhaps does not make sense), but eat CPU, occupy memory etc.
>> I cannot say this behavior is always (I'm killing processes only when
>> I need it), but I saw this several times, with last Fedora distros.
>>
>> It is bad glibc signal() implementation or what else?
>>
>> Regards, Franta Hanzlik
> 
> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5642/what-if-kill-9-does-not-work
> 
> Mateusz Marzantowicz

Thank for link, but I'm not a lot smarter.
Maybe Linux immunize system init (PID 1) against SIGKILL (but I was
working on Unices where SIGKILL to init caused clean & immediate
system halt - kernel flush buffers, unmount FSs and halt machine),
but what SIGKILL to other processes? I was killing them as root, and
as I wrote before, they was not zombies and possibly nor in
uninterruptible sleep - 'top' utility shows as they consumes eg.
several or several tens percents CPU.
Then, according to Your link, is only other possibility bad Linux
kernel?

Franta