From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 17 23:48:12 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9232637B404
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA40843FBF
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I6m4m42683;
	Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <36655.1055917248@critter.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20030618024448.I36168-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: marking normal sleep identifiers as such.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:48:12 -0000

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