From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 20 12:25:21 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 D4F49106566B for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:25:21 +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 91F668FC21 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ravenloft.kiev.ua ([91.123.146.100]) by istc.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N0DmA-00083B-RO; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:25:18 +0300 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:24:32 +0300 From: Alex Kozlov To: Lars Engels , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua Message-ID: <20091020122432.GA50817@ravenloft.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:25:21 -0000 On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:07:07AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > Quoting Alex Kozlov : > > > 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 > > Using SIGINFO sounds nice, but make produces so much output that > normally you won't see the result because it is scrolled up just after > sending the signal. Of course ps or top output much more convenient, but if setproctitle so expencive and will be called so often, then SIGINFO may be good compromise. -- Adios