From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb 12 12:26:26 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D24E216A4CE; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8FED243D1D; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:26:26 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i1CKQHfo027625;
	Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:26:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:26:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040212124357.B21291@pooker.samsco.home>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402121520080.21070-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Should ps -p list threads?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:26:26 -0000

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Scott Long wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > >
> > > The origianlpatch had _H show threads and normal ps did not..
> > > I don't know why this is as it is...
> >
> > Because it didn't take into account other 'ps' options.  Enabling
> > or disabling thread info should be an option for all KERN_PROC_foo,
> > not a separate option.  If I were to change it, I would add
> >
> > 	#define	KERN_PROC_THREADS	0x10000
> >
> > to <sys/sysctl.h>.  Then allow:
> >
> > 	mib[0] = CTL_KERN;
> > 	mib[1] = KERN_PROC;
> > 	mib[2] = KERN_PROC_UID | KERN_PROC_THREADS;
> > 	mib[3] = pid;
> >
> > ...
> >
> 
> Yeah, it's probably cleaner that way.  Still, you'll have to deal with
> KERN_PROC_PROC vs. KERN_PROC_ALL.  Maybe just remove both and have
> KERN_PROC_THREAD be a modifier for KERN_PROC_PID.

I was just going to allow them for backward compatibility.  Using
KERN_PROC_ALL would imply KERN_PROC_THREADS.

> Are you
> willing to do the kernel work for this too?

Preliminary (untested) patch just to show you where I was headed:

  http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/kse/sys.diffs.021204

I'll test and debug it, make associated changes in libkvm and
ps if you think the idea is OK.

-- 
Dan Eischen