Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Make long ddb not suck Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307311115390.32983-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030731123133.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 30-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > > >> I have a patch that adds a simple paging facility to ddb at the > >> db_printf() level using a one-shot callback mechanism. It includes > >> a simple paging callback that rearms itself based on the users > >> input (space does another page, enter another line). I've used this > >> facility to replace the hand-rolled paging in 'ps', 'show pci', and > >> 'show ktr'. The patch is at http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/ddb.patch > >> > >> Comments? > >> > >> Also, I notice that we have a 'show threads' command commented out from > >> the original Mach sources. I think we should change 'ps' back to just > >> showing simple process info (and hopefully back to 80 cols) and only > >> print thread info for 'show threads'. Maybe show threads should take a > >> PID as the argument? > > > > > > we do have "show thread (addr)" > > that shows the stacktrace. > > > > "show threads {pid}" > > would be good to identify the address > > of the thread to examine.. > > > >> > >> Thus, one would have: > >> > >> db> ps > >> 1 blah blah sleeping on "foo" > >> 2 blah blah threaded > >> > >> db> show threads 2 > >> 0 blah blah sleeping on "bar" > >> 1 blah blah running on cpuX > >> > > > > currently ps shows the threads by default.. > > either way is ok I guess. > > ps is hardly readable anymore because it is so cluttered now. I would > like ps to go back to something more like it was prior to KSE and > then use a separate show threads when one needs info about threads > within a process. one thing it shows now is that there can be many "inhibitors set on a thread/process at a time.. e.g. it can be: suspended and sleeping and swapped out. presently I enumerate them with [SWP][SLP][SUSP] but having a single field S S S L I L W U C W P P S K T wmesg ---------------------- bla - - 1 - - 1 1 1 - - iowait 1 1 - - - sbwait - - - 1 - Giant - - - - 1 int2 or even, in a more compact form: SSSLI LWUCW PPSKT wmesg ---------------------- bla --S-- ZXS-- iowait ZX--- sbwait ---W- Giant ----I int2 These would take a fixed size and would show the combinatorial possibilities.. > > -- > > 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0307311115390.32983-100000>