From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 23 22:58:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F29D1065678; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:58:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190678FC16; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (c-67-180-24-15.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.24.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBNMUIQb026087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:30:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4EF5011A.70709@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:30:50 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111213 Thunderbird/3.1.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <201112231520.00282.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201112231520.00282.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Teach KTR_SCHED to handle changing thread names X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:58:03 -0000 On 12/23/11 12:20 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > When I use the new schedgraph on 8, I find that it commonly calls almost all > threads "sh" or "tcsh" because it only uses the name from the initial fork and > never notices when a thread changes its name via exec. This makes traces > harder to follow. The patch below adds a hook to clear the cached thread name > to force it to be regenerated on the next trace when td_name changes. This > makes the traces more usable for me at least. > > I have no problems with this.. hard to decipher debugging as as bad as no debugging.