Subject: Re: changes to top to print wchan for sleeping procs
To: Laine Stump <email@example.com>
From: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/17/2001 23:36:37
On 17 Jan 2001, Laine Stump wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what "replacing wchan in favour of wchan"
> means. Are you suggesting a separate WCHAN column?
er, s/wchan/wcpu/ - yes, a seperate wchan column that does not mix
information would be more appealing to me (and I guess a lot of other
users that already know what CPU states we have now).
> I like the patch the way it is. The only possible change I might
> suggest (and there probably isn't enough room for it on the line
> anyway) would be to give some sort of indication *in the same column*
> that the process is actually in a sleep state. Maybe, eg, "(S)select",
> "S-select", "W-select", "(select)", or something like that.
Well, keep the "state" column to make the "sleep" obvious, and add a
Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>