From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 19 16:20:18 2009 Return-Path: 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 76A41106568B; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:18 +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 336428FC21; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ravenloft.kiev.ua ([91.123.146.100]) by istc.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mzuy0-00023C-Pw; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:20:16 +0300 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:20:16 +0300 From: Alex Kozlov To: Ivan Voras , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua Message-ID: <20091019162016.GA96201@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:18 -0000 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > 2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov : > > 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? > You mean SIGINFO? Yes -- Adios