<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Richard Purdie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":sf" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">This means that when you view the process tree, the processes<br>
have meaningful names, aiding debugging:<br>
<br>
$ pstree -p 30021<br>
bash(30021)───KnottyUI(115579)───Cooker(115590)─┬─PRServ(115592)───{PRServ Handler}(115593)<br>
├─Worker(115630)───bash:sleep(115631)───run.do_sleep.11(115633)───sleep(115634)<br>
└─{ProcessEQueue}(115591)<br>
<br>
$ pstree -p 30021<br>
bash(30021)───KnottyUI(117319)───Cooker(117330)─┬─Cooker(117335)<br>
├─PRServ(117332)───{PRServ Handler}(117333)<br>
├─Parser-1:2(117336)<br>
└─{ProcessEQueue}(117331)<br>
<br>
Applies to parse threads, PR Server, cooker, the workers and execution<br>
threads, working within the 16 character limit as best we can.<br>
<br>
Needed to tweak the <span class="il">bitbake</span>-worker magic values to tell the<br>
workers apart.<br>
<br>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>></div></blockquote></div><br>This is nice, but shouldn't we at least include 'bitbake' somewhere in the process names? Will this interfere with the ability to use pkill/killall to kill bitbake processes in cases where it's necessary?<br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Christopher Larson<br>clarson at kergoth dot com<br>Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus<br>Maintainer - Tslib<br>Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics</div>
</div></div>