Re: Updated procstat(1)

Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Skip Ford wrote:

- "-a" now means "all processes",

Thanks. :-) I'm a little surprised. You seemed pretty dedicated to a
per-process tool.

I was, but then I read your e-mail and became convinced that the first
patch that would be submitted against procstat(1) would be a "-a" patch. :-)

Yep, would've happened. Now the first patch submitted will be a
"-w interval" patch... :-)

- A new "-k" has been added, which prints the kernel thread stacks for
threads
in a process (although not swapped out or actively running threads).
This
is extremely useful for answering questions of the sort "But *why* is
the
process blocked in UMA". It has both a simple mode (-k_, which lists
just
kernel function names, and a slightly more detailed mode (-kk), which
adds
the offset into the function.

This is excellent. Does this absolutely have to depend on DDB and KDB?

Currently, yes, as stack(9) is conditional on DDB, and the MD bits of
stack(9) are defined in db_trace.c (and in some cases, depend on DDB
definitions, such as DDB types, although I think not critically so). I've
also been pondering breaking out stack(9) from DDB but haven't done that
yet. Maybe that will be today's task, as I'd like -k to work without the
kernel debugger, as it has use significantly beyond kernel debugging.

That'd be great if it worked without DDB. It just "feels" like it should.

This tool is a very nice addition. Thanks for writing it and for asking for
feedback, then putting up with the responses.

--
Skip
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"