[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090817152206.50c35330.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:22:06 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@...il.com>,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800
Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
> it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
> something obvious).
>
>
> >
> >In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
> >users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
> >/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has
> >good parser per line.
> >
>
> Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.
>
> ps -o pid,utime,stime
>
> 'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.
>
Hmm, personally, I don't like 'ps' and its unified filter.
When I want to know status of a process of PID,
# ps -o pid,utime,stime PID
'ps' scans *all* process and filter PID. (try #strace ps)
I like checking /proc/<pid>/<something> without 'ps' in an environment
where thousands of processes runs.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists