Hello Dave,
I was recommended to add the display of ST when using ps -l. Because it
is simple, so I made the patch at first and then talk about the merit of
patch with you.
The display is like below:
crash> ps -l
[100126284069406] PID: 2389 TASK: ffff88047416aa80 ST:IN CPU: 12
COMMAND: "kondemand/12"
[100126285814043] PID: 795 TASK: ffff880470cb3540 ST:UN CPU: 0
COMMAND: "jbd2/sda2-8"
[100126284061076] PID: 2377 TASK: ffff88047426c100 ST:IN CPU: 0
COMMAND: "kondemand/0"
[100126284058337] PID: 70050 TASK: ffff88045beaeac0 ST:RU CPU: 3
COMMAND: "crash"
[100126285834369] PID: 70781 TASK: ffff88046929e100 ST:RU CPU: 0
COMMAND: "dd"
...
I think "ps -l", which displays task sorted by last_run/timestamp, is
concerning about the state of the task. Taking it into consideration, on
a live system with original code, we use "ps -l" to show the sorted
tasks at first, then use "ps" to display the state. The two pieces of
information in such situation are not consonant. This is the reason why
ST is needed.
--
--
Regards
Qiao Nuohan
diff --git a/task.c b/task.c
index fde86eb..9e95b83 100755
--- a/task.c
+++ b/task.c
@@ -5770,10 +5770,12 @@ print_task_header(FILE *out, struct task_context *tc, int newline)
{
char buf[BUFSIZE];
char buf1[BUFSIZE];
+ char buf2[BUFSIZE];
- fprintf(out, "%sPID: %-5ld TASK: %s CPU: %-2s COMMAND: \"%s\"\n",
+ fprintf(out, "%sPID: %-5ld TASK: %s ST:%s CPU: %-2s COMMAND: \"%s\"\n",
newline ? "\n" : "", tc->pid,
mkstring(buf1, VADDR_PRLEN, LJUST|LONG_HEX, MKSTR(tc->task)),
+ task_state_string(tc->task, buf2, !VERBOSE),
task_cpu(tc->processor, buf, !VERBOSE), tc->comm);
}
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
