Updated procstat(1)

[Skip Ford]

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