Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:42:21 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/nfsclient nfs_nfsiod.c Message-ID: <XFMail.20030702134221.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <2249.1057166619@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02-Jul-2003 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20030702101716.E90143@root.org>, Nate Lawson writes: >>On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> Change idle sleep indentifier to "-" for nfsiod >>> >>> Revision Changes Path >>> 1.78 +1 -1 src/sys/nfsclient/nfs_nfsiod.c >> >>I'm ok with changing to a single character for the default sleep state but >>"-" is the same as a running process. For example: >> >> 1000 90138 90136 2 18 0 1780 1364 pause Ss p0 0:00.10 -tcsh >> 1000 90210 90138 2 28 0 440 196 - R+ p0 0:00.00 ps axl >> >>As you can see, without looking at the run field, it doesn't immediately >>jump out at you which processes are asleep where the "pause" above >>definitely does. How about something like "+" or "*"? > > ...but as you can see, the sleeping processes lack the (R)unning flag. > > I don't care one iota what the string is, I simple went with '-' because > the interrrupt threads already used that. No, they don't use that. You must have missed my earlier email. Ithreads block not in SSLEEP (or TDI_SLEEP) but in SWAIT, a different state altogether. That state has no associated sleep channel, so ps prints the default '-'. I don't mind '-', but I hadn't thought about the running process problem earlier. Perhaps "idle"? Then ps and top could perhaps be taught to use "idle" for mwchan of threads in TDI_WAIT? -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030702134221.jhb>