Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:07:07 +0200 From: Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Make process title - % complete Message-ID: <20091020100707.60jfc16iskcgcccg@0x20.net> In-Reply-To: <20091019162016.GA96201@ravenloft.kiev.ua> References: <20091019162016.GA96201@ravenloft.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Quoting Alex Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua>: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: >> 2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua>: >> > 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. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkrdb6sACgkQKc512sD3afjJ5ACdF5tILIQ89zrl0VU0x1jXWLsS +jcAn21Q3qTIX11uoV0CLu9NcuqBP0j7 =urXJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091020100707.60jfc16iskcgcccg>