Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:01:15 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: marking normal sleep identifiers as such. Message-ID: <p05210631bb16f2e206df@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030618092937.4523A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030618092937.4523A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:33 AM -0400 6/18/03, Robert Watson wrote: >On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > Since thread names are longer than the space we have in ps(1) > > output using the thread name is not feasible solution. > > > > I notice that the interrupt threads all seem to sleep on "-", > > and all things considered, I like that. > > >> Should we adopt that as our convention ? > >I agree with the concern -- I've similarly noticed an increase >in the amount of time I spend diagnosing apparent deadlocks as >I attempt to determine if kernel threads are simply idle, or >stuck on locks. I don't really mind what the convention is; >"-" is probably as good as any. Another possible convention >would be to name the state fooidle -- i.e., pageridle, acpiidle, ... Long ago and in an operating-system far away (and which is not running anywhere now), we had a similar problem. We ended up adding a mechanism here the sleeper could specify a character string which would show up in our equivalent of 'ps'. This was implemented by having one hardware register which held the address of the string to display. Perhaps something similar could be done in freebsd. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05210631bb16f2e206df>