Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:48:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: marking normal sleep identifiers as such. Message-ID: <20030618024448.I36168-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <36655.1055917248@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > Now that we have a bunch of kernel threads which participate in the > running of the system, I find that it is a tad more time consuming > to figure out what the state of a crashed or hung system is. > > So I was wondering if we should instigate a simple convention for > the sleep identifiers to make it easier to spot, or rather: ignore, > kthreads which are in their normal idle position. > > Since thread names are longer than the space we have in ps(1) output > using the thread name is not feasible solution. > > I notice that the interrupt threads all seem to sleep on "-", and > all things considered, I like that. > > Should we adopt that as our convention ? I like the idea of having a convention. I think most any consistent identifier will do. I vote yes. Cheers, Jeff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030618024448.I36168-100000>