Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:33:20 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should ps -p list threads? Message-ID: <20040212123150.Y21291@pooker.samsco.home> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402121408350.5277-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402121408350.5277-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:16:57AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > But 'ps' without -H seems to display KSEs where it shouldn't. > > > > I looked in the source code of ps, > > specifically in src/bin/ps/ps.c > > [ ... ] > > > > So, I am not sure if this is a bug in kvm_getprocs() or in ps.c, > > but the result is that if you type ps or ps -H, they > > both display KSEs. Probably just typing ps should not display > > them. > > > > Any idea what the problem is? > > We currently lack a sysctl interface to get finer-grained > process info. I think KERN_PROC_THREADS (or whatever) should > be added as a flag to the sysctl, so that you can 'or' it > in to 'op' of kvm_getprocs(). You would need some kernel > changes to support it too. I can look at it when I get > a chance. > Give me a chance to look at this first. The whole idea of KERN_PROC_ALL vs KERN_PROC_PROC was to express this. If it's broken, then give me a day or two to find out why. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040212123150.Y21291>