Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>]

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?