[PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[girish]

Hello.

Could somebody please check if this is acceptable.

Thanks.

Signed-off-by: Girish V. Gulawani <girishvg@gmail.com>


--- linux-vanilla/fs/proc/array.c	2006-09-20 12:42:06.000000000 +0900
+++ linux/fs/proc/array.c	2006-09-30 00:16:59.000000000 +0900
@@ -248,6 +248,8 @@ static inline char * task_sig(struct tas
  	int num_threads = 0;
  	unsigned long qsize = 0;
  	unsigned long qlim = 0;
+	int num_children = 0;
+	struct list_head *_p;

  	sigemptyset(&pending);
  	sigemptyset(&shpending);
@@ -268,9 +270,11 @@ static inline char * task_sig(struct tas
  		qlim = p->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_SIGPENDING].rlim_cur;
  		spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
  	}
+	list_for_each(_p, &p->children)
+		++num_children;
  	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);

-	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads);
+	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads +  
num_children);
  	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "SigQ:\t%lu/%lu\n", qsize, qlim);

  	/* render them all */

[PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[girish]

Signed-off-by: Girish V. Gulawani <girishvg@gmail.com>

--- linux-vanilla/fs/proc/array.c	2006-09-20 12:42:06.000000000 +0900
+++ linux/fs/proc/array.c	2006-09-30 00:16:59.000000000 +0900
@@ -248,6 +248,8 @@ static inline char * task_sig(struct tas
  	int num_threads = 0;
  	unsigned long qsize = 0;
  	unsigned long qlim = 0;
+	int num_children = 0;
+	struct list_head *_p;

  	sigemptyset(&pending);
  	sigemptyset(&shpending);
@@ -268,9 +270,11 @@ static inline char * task_sig(struct tas
  		qlim = p->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_SIGPENDING].rlim_cur;
  		spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
  	}
+	list_for_each(_p, &p->children)
+		++num_children;
  	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);

-	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads);
+	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads +  
num_children);
  	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "SigQ:\t%lu/%lu\n", qsize, qlim);

  	/* render them all */

Re: [PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[William Pitcock]

On Sep 29, 2006, at 10:18 AM, girish wrote:

>
> -	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads);
> +	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads +  
> num_children);

Personally, I'd prefer the children count to be separate, something  
like:

buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d (%d children, %d total)",  
num_threads, num_children, num_threads + num_children);

That would be rather nice, indeed.

Also, next time, make sure that linux-kernel is CC'd, not BCC'd.

---
William Pitcock
nenolod@atheme.org
http://people.atheme.org/~nenolod/
http://nenolod.net

Re: [PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[girish]

On Sep 30, 2006, at 1:31 AM, William Pitcock wrote:

>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 10:18 AM, girish wrote:
>
>>
>> -	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads);
>> +	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads +  
>> num_children);
>
> Personally, I'd prefer the children count to be separate, something  
> like:
>
> buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d (%d children, %d total)",  
> num_threads, num_children, num_threads + num_children);
>
> That would be rather nice, indeed.
>
> Also, next time, make sure that linux-kernel is CC'd, not BCC'd.
>
> ---
> William Pitcock
> nenolod@atheme.org
> http://people.atheme.org/~nenolod/
> http://nenolod.net
>
>

Agree.  It indeed look better. I too had an awk script in mind, to  
parse the line.  I ended up removing such formatting, because not all  
process spawn child thread(s), showing num_children count as zero.  
That looked bit odd. So here it is again - new wine.

Thanks.

Signed-off-by: Girish V. Gulawani <girishvg@gmail.com>
--- linux-vanilla/fs/proc/array.c	2006-09-20 12:42:06.000000000 +0900
+++ linux/fs/proc/array.c	2006-09-30 01:47:25.000000000 +0900
@@ -248,6 +248,8 @@ static inline char * task_sig(struct tas
  	int num_threads = 0;
  	unsigned long qsize = 0;
  	unsigned long qlim = 0;
+	int num_children = 0;
+	struct list_head *_p;

  	sigemptyset(&pending);
  	sigemptyset(&shpending);
@@ -268,9 +270,14 @@ static inline char * task_sig(struct tas
  		qlim = p->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_SIGPENDING].rlim_cur;
  		spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
  	}
+	list_for_each(_p, &p->children)
+		++num_children;
  	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);

-	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads);
+	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d", num_threads);
+	if (num_children)
+		buffer += sprintf(buffer, " (%d children, %d total)",  
num_children, num_threads + num_children);
+	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "\n");
  	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "SigQ:\t%lu/%lu\n", qsize, qlim);

  	/* render them all */

Re: [PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[Jan Engelhardt]

>> > 
>> > -	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads);
>> > +	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads +
>> > num_children);
>> 
>> Personally, I'd prefer the children count to be separate, something like:
>> 
>> buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d (%d children, %d total)",
>> num_threads, num_children, num_threads + num_children);
>> 
>> That would be rather nice, indeed.

And I would suggest three separate lines to keep it parseable!


Jan Engelhardt
-- 

Re: [PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[girish]

On Sep 30, 2006, at 2:06 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

>>>>
>>>> -	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads);
>>>> +	buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d\n", num_threads +
>>>> num_children);
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd prefer the children count to be separate,  
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d (%d children, %d total)",
>>> num_threads, num_children, num_threads + num_children);
>>>
>>> That would be rather nice, indeed.
>
> And I would suggest three separate lines to keep it parseable!
>
>
> Jan Engelhardt
> -- 

How about this?

         buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d", num_threads);
         if (num_children)
                 buffer += sprintf(buffer, " Children: %d Total: %d",  
num_children, num_threads + num_children);
         buffer += sprintf(buffer, "\n");

Re: [PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[Jan Engelhardt]

>
> How about this?
>
> buffer += sprintf(buffer, "Threads:\t%d", num_threads);
> if (num_children)
>                buffer += sprintf(buffer, " Children: %d Total: %d",
> num_children, num_threads + num_children);
> buffer += sprintf(buffer, "\n");
>

No, this:

> if (num_children)                                                             
>                buffer += sprintf(buffer, "\nChildren: %d\nTotal: %d",

the newlines are essential because then you get _one_ field of 
information for _each_ call of fgets().



Jan Engelhardt
-- 

Re: [PATCH] include children count, in Threads: field present in /proc/<pid>/status (take-1)

[Ralf Baechle]

This is a patch to generic code; please submit it to
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.

  Ralf