From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jun 11 5:40:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.openet-telecom.com (mail.openet-telecom.com [62.17.151.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750AD37B414; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gpo.openet-telecom.lan (unverified) by mail.openet-telecom.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:52:05 +0100 Received: from openet-telecom.com (10.0.0.40) by gpo.openet-telecom.lan (NPlex 6.5.007) id 3CF373520000B004; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:37:00 +0100 Message-ID: <3D05EFA8.6070805@openet-telecom.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:40:08 +0100 From: Peter Edwards User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020610 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juli Mallett Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Looking for comments on a new utility... References: <20020611051517.A87966@FreeBSD.ORG> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Solaris has something similar in /usr/proc/bin/ptree. One of the things it lets you do is specify _which_ user to use. Isn't the kvm_*() interface somewhat frowned upon? Is there anything missing from /proc that you need kvm_* for? -- Cheers, Peter. Juli Mallett wrote: > Hej, > > As some of you may have noticed, I've done some poking of ps(1) lately, and > this has brought attention of people who have ideas for things that they > would like to see done to ps(1) :) The most notable request was for a > feature I've missed having in our ps(1) for a while, the ability to get a > tree of processes printed so you can tell who is whose child, etc. > > ps(1)'s internals, however, didn't seem quite right to me, but after about > 10 minutes reading kvm(3) manpages and recalling some tricks with recursive > programming to produce an N-level tree with as many as N-1 elements, I had > come up with a simple utility to print out a "process tree". > > You can find the code here: > http://people.freebsd.org/~jmallett/.proctree/proctree.c > > And some example output from a cluster machine here: > http://people.freebsd.org/~jmallett/.proctree/proctree.out > > Lots of people have given feedback that they don't care much for the \_ > formatting of the tree, and I'm willing to look at patches that provide > noticably more readable output. > > I'd actually like to hear what information otherwise could better be > included along with associated login, pid, cpu, etc. > > And I'd really like to hear thoughts about inclusion of this into the tree. > Does anyone hold the opinion that it absolutely cannot be included? Does > anyone have any suggestions to make the code better? > > I'm asking you guys, the CURRENT userbase, since you are users who obviously > seem to take more of an interest in FreeBSD's future, etc. :) > > Thanks, > juli. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message