Hi,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Max Laier wrote:
> On Monday 19 October 2009 16:08:06 Rink Springer wrote:
>> Hi Ivan,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> > if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
>>
>> I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:28:40 -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote:
>Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:51:42 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>>2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov :
How about add this statistic to make info handler?
>>>
>>> You mean SIGINFO?
>>
>> Yes, that's the ``info handler''.
>>
>>
On Monday 19 October 2009 16:08:06 Rink Springer wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
>
> I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to call; perhaps
> it would make sense offer a flag to prevent ma
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:51:42 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov :
How about add this statistic to make info handler?
You mean SIGINFO?
Yes, that's the ``info handler''.
While printing something on SINGINFO arrival is a nice idea, it
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:51:42 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov :
>> How about add this statistic to make info handler?
>
> You mean SIGINFO?
Yes, that's the ``info handler''.
While printing something on SINGINFO arrival is a nice idea, it may not
be extremely useful for make(1).
2009/10/20 Roman Divacky :
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:42:17PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> Alex Kozlov wrote:
>>
>> >Of course ps or top output much more convenient, but if setproctitle so
>> >expencive and will be called so often, then SIGINFO may be good
>> >compromise.
>>
>> Regarding speed of
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:42:17PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Alex Kozlov wrote:
>
> >Of course ps or top output much more convenient, but if setproctitle so
> >expencive and will be called so often, then SIGINFO may be good
> >compromise.
>
> Regarding speed of setproctitle(), here are some mic
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:42:17PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Alex Kozlov wrote:
>
> > Of course ps or top output much more convenient, but if setproctitle so
> > expencive and will be called so often, then SIGINFO may be good
> > compromise.
>
> Regarding speed of setproctitle(), here are some
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 14:42 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Alex Kozlov wrote:
>
> > Of course ps or top output much more convenient, but if setproctitle so
> > expencive and will be called so often, then SIGINFO may be good
> > compromise.
>
> Regarding speed of setproctitle(), here are some microbe
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>>
>> I have a small patch that makes "make" display percentage complete in
>> process title, which can be retrieved in "top" in the form of:
>>
>> 71466 root 1 76 0 7008K 5696K select 0 0:00 0.00%
>>
Alex Kozlov wrote:
Of course ps or top output much more convenient, but if setproctitle so
expencive and will be called so often, then SIGINFO may be good
compromise.
Regarding speed of setproctitle(), here are some microbenchmark results
from the attached test source:
getpid: 3661124.75 i
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:07:07AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
> Quoting Alex Kozlov :
>
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> 2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov :
> >> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 04:35:08PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> >> >> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
>
Quoting Alex Kozlov :
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov :
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 04:35:08PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> >> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
>> >
>> > I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to
call; perha
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov :
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 04:35:08PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> >> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
> >> >
> >> > I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to call; perhaps
> >> > it would
2009/10/19 Alex Kozlov :
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 04:35:08PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> >> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
>> >
>> > I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to call; perhaps
>> > it would make sense offer a flag to prevent make(1) from calling it? [1]
>> >
>>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 04:35:08PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
> >
> > I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to call; perhaps
> > it would make sense offer a flag to prevent make(1) from calling it? [1]
> >
> > Anyway, the feature looks nice!
Ivan Voras wrote:
I have a small patch that makes "make" display percentage complete in
process title, which can be retrieved in "top" in the form of:
71466 root 1 760 7008K 5696K select 0 0:00 0.00%
make: 95% (55 more targets out of 1360) (make)
Also: is there someone
2009/10/19 Rink Springer :
> Hi Ivan,
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
>
> I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to call; perhaps
> it would make sense offer a flag to prevent make(1) from calling it? [1]
>
> A
Hi Ivan,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> if nobody objects, I'll commit it :)
I seem to recall that setproctitle() is quite expensive to call; perhaps
it would make sense offer a flag to prevent make(1) from calling it? [1]
Anyway, the feature looks nice! I'd like t
I have a small patch that makes "make" display percentage complete in
process title, which can be retrieved in "top" in the form of:
71466 root 1 760 7008K 5696K select 0 0:00 0.00%
make: 95% (55 more targets out of 1360) (make)
The patch is here and I'm inviting review
20 matches
Mail list logo
