From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 19 15:39:24 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D9C1065741;
	Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:39:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kozlov@ravenloft.kiev.ua)
Received: from istc.kiev.ua (wolf.istc.kiev.ua [193.108.236.1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DB58FC0A;
	Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:39:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ravenloft.kiev.ua ([91.123.146.100])
	by istc.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kozlov@ravenloft.kiev.ua>)
	id 1MztQV-0008Gg-Ly; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:41:35 +0300
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:41:35 +0300
From: Alex Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org,
	spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua
Message-ID: <20091019144135.GA91918@ravenloft.kiev.ua>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Make process title - % complete
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:39:24 -0000

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 04:35:08PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
> >
> > I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to call; perhaps
> > it would make sense offer a flag to prevent make(1) from calling it? [1]
> >
> > Anyway, the feature looks nice! I'd like to have it...
> >
> > [1] I'm unsure how expensive it is compared to fork(1)-ing etc; I'd
> >    expect it's negligable but who knows...
> 
> The loop it's called in is not processed bazillion times per second
> (though it *is* called surprisingly often; small, fast jobs can result
> in somewhere in the order of magnitude of 100 iterations per second on
> a fast CPU). As you said - I expect it's negligable compared to fork()
> and the work jobs themselves do.
How about add this statistic to make info handler?


--
Adios