From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 17 23:20:51 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB98837B405
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC26943F93
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5I6KmBE036656
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:20:49 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: arch@freebsd.org
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:20:48 +0200
Message-ID: <36655.1055917248@critter.freebsd.dk>
Subject: marking normal sleep identifiers as such.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:20:52 -0000


Now that we have a bunch of kernel threads which participate in the
running of the system, I find that it is a tad more time consuming
to figure out what the state of a crashed or hung system is.

So I was wondering if we should instigate a simple convention for
the sleep identifiers to make it easier to spot, or rather: ignore,
kthreads which are in their normal idle position.

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 ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.