From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb 12 11:33:31 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B93816A4CF
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.5])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A7BB43D1D
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:33:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org)
Received: (qmail 17899 invoked by uid 1002); 12 Feb 2004 19:32:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.4.1.17?) (64.58.1.252)
  by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 12 Feb 2004 19:32:59 -0000
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:33:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: scottl@pooker.samsco.home
To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402121408350.5277-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
Message-ID: <20040212123150.Y21291@pooker.samsco.home>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402121408350.5277-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Should ps -p list threads?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:33:31 -0000

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