Sometimes processes die. Maybe they didn’t have to; maybe we could have accounted for the eventuality, but probably not. The truth is, programming’s a messy business. The data we work with is messy, the specs are messy, the network’s messy, and above all else, people are messy. And so, in spite of our best intentions and best efforts, processes die.

In my article Elixir Processes: Send and Receive we learned how to spawn new processes and use messages to communicate with them. What was absent in the article, however, was any discussion about what to do when a process dies. We didn’t worry about it in the examples: the functions were small, we were dealing with known data sets, and they where just examples after all. But we live in a messy world. We work with complicated functions, unknown data sets, and active, production code. When a process dies, it’s not okay to just “let it crash,” we have to do something about it.

In that last article we saw how processes communicate by sending messages to other processes or even to themselves. Once sent, messages wait in a process’s mailbox until “received”. Unless spawned processes are alive and able to respond with messages of their own, how is the caller supposed to know the target process received the message or is even still alive?

You might answer with, “because it has the process’s PID.” Maybe, but try this:

iex > pid = pid(0, 999, 0) # <- non-existent PID

iex >

iex > send(pid, :hello)

It looks like our IEx session was able to send a message to #PID<0.999.0>. We even get the expected response, but the process doesn’t exist. This proves we can’t rely on message passing to know if a process is still alive. Dead processes tell no tales. Instead we need to either keep a watchful eye on the process, or bind the watcher and watched together. We’ll tackle this second idea first.

Linking Processes

In Programming Elixir, Dave Thomas describes linking like this: “Linking joins the calling process and another process–each receives notifications about the other.” In reality, linking processes together is more like binding them together in a death pact. The pact says that if one process dies, all the processes linked to it will also die. It also means that processes linked to processes linked to a dying process die too. Pacts are not to be trifled with.

At first blush, linking processes seems like an extreme decision to make in your application design; taking out all associated processes just because one messed up is an extreme outcome. However, if you’ve ever used a GenServer, you’ve already linked processes. To demonstrate what I mean, let’s look at the world’s most useless GenServer:

defmodule Useless do
  use GenServer

  def start_link(_) do
    GenServer.start_link(__MODULE__, [])

  def init(_), do: {:ok, []}

Copy those nine lines into an IEx session and then make note of the IEx session’s PID:

iex > self()

Next, we’ll start Useless, kill it, and check our IEx session’s PID again.

iex > {:ok, pid} = Useless.start_link([])
{:ok, #PID<0.126.0>}
iex > Process.exit(pid, :kill)
** (EXIT from #PID<0.121.0>) shell process exited with reason: killed

Interactive Elixir (1.9.1) - press Ctrl+C to exit (type h() ENTER for help)
iex > self()

As you can see, when we start the Useless GenServer and kill it, it takes our IEx session with it, because the two were linked. This should give you pause the next time you start a GenServer outside of anything other than a supervisor.

The question remains: why would you link processes together? Elixir is a concurrent programming language. We often use many processes to perform a larger computation. If one of those processes behaves badly, “We don’t [want to] make matters worse by performing additional computations after we know that things have gone wrong” (Programming Erlang)

Linking Primitives

The two function primitives for linking processes are spawn_link/1,3 and The former takes arguments to launch a new process and link to it at the same time, while the latter accepts a PID to perfrom the link. In both cases, “Linking joins the calling process and another process–each receives notifications about the other.” (Programming Elixir) Let’s look at each in turn.


spawn_link/1,3 is an atomic function: it both spawns a process and links to it at the same time. This ensures the spawned process can’t die before it and the calling process are linked. Like spawn/1,3 it can be called two different ways: by passing it a function or by passing an MFA (module, function, arguments). Let’s look at spawn_link/1 first:

iex > pid = spawn_link(fn -> receive do :crash -> 1 / 0 end end)

iex > send(pid, :crash)

The anonymous function we provide spawn_link/1 does nothing except wait for a specific message: :crash. All other messages are stored safely in its mailbox, but when a :crash message is sent, it matches against it and attempts to divide 1 by 0, summarily throwing an ArithmeticError exception. The exception kills the process and the linked IEx process with it.

We can do something similar with spawn_link/3.

iex > defmodule Crashy do
... >   def run do
... >     receive do
... >       :crash -> 1 / 0
... >     end
... >   end
... > end

iex > pid = spawn_link(Crashy, :run, [])

iex > send pid, :crash

In both cases, when we send the linked process the :crash message it throws an exception, exiting the process, and taking our IEx session with it.

Unlike spawn_link/1,3, accepts the PID of an existing process, which by definition cannot be atomic: the process already existed. It is much more common to both see and use than either of the spawn_link variants. Even the Elixir docs warn against using spawn_link: “Typically developers do not use the spawn functions, instead they use abstractions such as Task, GenServer and Agent, built on top of spawn, that spawns processes with more conveniences in terms of introspection and debugging.” Elixir - spawn_link docs

To demonstrate how to use, spawn a new process similar to what we did above with spawn_link/1:

iex > pid = spawn(fn -> receive do :crash -> raise "boom" end end)

If we were to send :crash to our spawned process, it would raise an exception and die, but our existing IEx process would be fine. If we called before sending the :crash message, however, we’ll see output much like what we saw with spawn_link/1,3.

iex >

iex > send pid, :crash
** (EXIT from #PID<0.127.0>) shell process exited with reason: an exception was
    ** (RuntimeError) boom
        (stdlib) erl_eval.erl:678: :erl_eval.do_apply/6

Trapping Exits

So far linking processes has been a useless exercise. There are no instances I can think of where you’d want to terminate linked processes with no ability to recover. Erlang’s mantra, “Let it crash,” concerns individual processes within an application, not the entire application itself. Even then, the idea is to allow a supervisor to restart the process from a clean slate. But how does a supervisor know when a child process dies and when to restart it? Simple, the supervisor and the child process are linked. The next question then is, “why doesn’t the supervisor die along with the child when it dies?” The answer is because the supervisor traps the exit signal.

When processes are linked, “If [any] process terminates for whatever reason, an exit signal is propagated to all the processes it’s linked to.” The Little Elixir & OTP Guidebook. Elixir allows us to “trap” that exit signal, converting it to a three-tuple message instead.

When trap_exit is set to “true”, exit signals arriving to a process are converted to {'EXIT', From, Reason} messages, which can be received as ordinary messages. If trap_exit is set to “false”, the process exits if it receives an exit signal other than normal and the exit signal is propagated to its linked processes. Application processes are normally not to trap exits.

Erlang - process_flag/2

Let’s see how this works:

defmodule Crashy do
  def run do
    Process.flag(:trap_exit, true)
    spawn_link(Crashy, :splode, [])

    receive do
      {signal, pid, msg} ->
        IO.inspect signal
        IO.inspect pid
        IO.inspect msg

  def splode do
    exit :kaboom

Try running this in an IEx session with The output will look similar to this:

iex >

Instead of the exception messages we’ve seen so far in our examples, we’re now able to capture the exit signal and do something about it. We do this by first telling our process we want to trap exit signals with Process.flag(:trap_exit, true). The next line spawns the splode/0 function as a linked process which immediate exits. Finally, we use the receive block in the run/0 function to match against the exit signal and output the information returned.

If Crashy were a supervising process, you can imagine how you could use this information to start up a new process, terminate associated processes, or something else.

Listing and Unlinking

In Elixir Processes: Send and Receive, we used to see how much memory spawned processes take up and also how many messages were waiting in a process’s mailbox. Now, we’ll use to display the PIDs linked to a process. Instead of passing :memory or :messages with the PID, we’ll send :links (surprising, I know.)

# View the console's current links
iex >, :links)
{:links, []}

# Spawn a process and view the link it creates to the console
iex > spawn_link(fn -> IO.inspect, :links) end)
{:links, [#PID<0.138.0>]}

Once you have a process’s links, you can do something with them. One use might be to unlink them. Process.unlink/1 “[r]emoves the link between the calling process and the given item.” Let’s see this in action:

iex > self()

iex > pid = spawn_link(fn -> receive do :crash -> exit :wheres_the_kaboom end end)

iex >, :links)
{:links, [#PID<0.161.0>]}

iex > Process.unlink(pid)

iex > send(pid, :crash)

iex > self()

iex >, :links)
{:links, []}

At this point in the article you probably understand everything that’s going on above, but just in case, let’s take it a step at a time. To begin, we use self() to determine our console’s PID to ensure the process we start with is the same one we end with. Next, we spawn a “crashy” process linking it to our IEx session. Just for clarity’s sake, we use to prove we are linked to it. Next, we unlink the process and send it a :crash message. Finally, we call self/0 to prove our console is the same process we started with and then show that we no longer have linked processes associated with it.

Monitoring Processes

If linking processes is like a couple who’ve grown old together and can’t live without the other, monitoring processes is like reading the obituaries: you know who’s died and you might feel bad about it, but it doesn’t affect you much beyond that.

With the exception of the return values and function name, there’s very little difference between linking to a process and monitoring one. Just replace “link” in spawn_link/1,3 and with “monitor” and you’re almost done. The real difference between linking and monitoring is how processes handle the death of processes to which they’re connected.

The goal of linking processes is to ensure every linked process dies if any one dies. The goal of monitoring processes is to ensure a process knows about the termination of another process. If linking ensures all linked processes die unless the exit signals are trapped, the question then arises, “Why not always use monitors instead?”

Imagine we had two hand-rolled supervisor processes: one linking to its children, and the other using monitor. In each scenario the “supervisor” will be notified if a child exits and will be able to restart it. But what happens if the supervisor dies? For the children that are linked to their supervisor, they will exit along with their supervisor. The children which were being monitored, however, will not even know their supervisor is gone. “…monitoring lets a process spawn another and be notified of its termination, but without the reverse notification–it is one-way only.” (Programming Elixir) This latter scenario isn’t what you want when it comes to supervisors.

Monitoring Primitives

As with linking processes, there are two function primitives for monitoring processes: spawn_monitor/1,3 and Process.monitor/1. spawn_monitor/1,3 accepts either a function or MFA, while Process.monitor/1 accepts the PID of an existing process. Unlike the link functions, the monitor functions also include a “reference” in their return value.


Like its cousin, spawn_link/1,3, spawn_monitor/1,3 is atomic in its execution. Also, like its cousin, it can be called by either passing a function or an MFA. Unlike spawn_link, however, spawn_monitor returns a two-element tuple containing the PID and reference to the spawned process.

iex > {pid, ref} = spawn_monitor(fn -> receive do :crash -> exit :kaboom end end)
{#PID<0.110.0>, #Reference<0.3864886318.2185232385.215284>}

Having spawned and begun monitoring the process, let’s see what happens when the process is killed:

iex > send(pid, :crash)

iex > flush
{:DOWN, #Reference<0.3864886318.2185232385.215284>, :process, #PID<0.110.0>,

If you were to check the PID of the IEx session before and after, you would see it was the same. spawn_monitor/3 is much the same

iex > defmodule Crashy do
iex >   def run do
iex >     receive do
iex >       :crash -> exit :kaboom
iex >     end
iex >   end
iex > end

iex > {pid, ref} = spawn_monitor(Crashy, :run, [])
{#PID<0.124.0>, #Reference<0.3864886318.2185232385.215530>}

iex > send(pid, :crash)

iex > flush
{:DOWN, #Reference<0.3864886318.2185232385.215530>, :process, #PID<0.124.0>,


Like, Process.monitor/1 accepts the PID of an existing process. Instead of returning true, however, Process.monitor/1 returns a reference to the monitored process.

iex > pid = spawn(fn -> receive do :add -> IO.puts 1 + 2 end end)

iex > ref = Process.monitor(pid)

iex > send(pid, :add)

iex > flush
{:DOWN, #Reference<0.3439345400.1300496390.106497>, :process, #PID<0.137.0>,

In the above example, we launch a simple function to add two numbers and return the PID. Monitoring the PID, we can then send an :add message to it, executing the contained logic. Because the function terminates at the end of its execution, it send any monitoring processes a message about its demise (the four-element :DOWN tuple.)

Listing and Demonitoring

To retrieve information about a process’s links, you pass :links along with the PID to It doesn’t matter which of the linked PIDs you provide; as far as the BEAM is concerned, they’re all linked processes and caller is indistinguishable from the called. For monitored processes, however, it does matter. Therefore, instead of a single option to return all associated PIDs, you need to pass either :monitors or :monitored_by to, :monitors) will return a list of PIDs a process monitors, while, :monitored_by) will return the PIDs monitoring the process.

iex > pid = spawn(fn -> receive do :doit -> IO.puts "did it" end end)

iex > ref = Process.monitor(pid)

iex >, :monitors)
{:monitors, [process: #PID<0.151.0>]}

iex >, :monitored_by)
{:monitored_by, [#PID<0.134.0>]}

Demonitoring a process performs a function similar to unlinking one. By passing a reference to the Process.demonitor/2 function, you remove that process from the list of monitored processes.

If we continue where we left off in our previous IEx session:

iex > Process.demonitor(ref)

iex >, :monitors)
{:monitors, []}

iex >, :monitored_by)
{:monitored_by, []}


If you are doing anything mildly complicated with Elixir, that is to say, if you’re working with real data, third party services, networks, or humanity, you will have processes die. There’s no escape. And while there is no escaping process death, there are alternatives to “letting them crash.”

In Elixir, as in Erlang, processes can be either linked together or set up to be monitored. When processes are linked, they all share the same fate. If one dies, they all die—unless they trap the exit message. On the other hand, when processes are monitored, they notify their monitor of their demise. In each case, you can put logic in place to to handle the termination intelligently. But which should you choose: links or monitors? “If the intent is that a failure in one process should terminate another, then you need links. If instead you need to know when some other process exits for any reason, choose monitors.” (Programming Elixir(PE 209))

For processes, death is not the end, or at least it doesn’t have to be. “[Ladies and gentlemen], we can rebuild [them]. We have the technology. We have the capability…” Maybe that’s a conversation for the future.