Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:32:02 +0800 | From | Amerigo Wang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime. |
| |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:22:06PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800 >Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.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.
Sure, we already have '-p' for 'ps', e.g.
ps -p 1 -o pid,user,comm
Enjoy. :-)
Anyway, I would like to see 'ps' to have 'utime,stime' field, on my machine, its output for 'utime,stime' looks wrong.
Maybe we should Cc procps developers?
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |