This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: debugging threads vs processes
- To: Cedric Berger <cedric at wireless-networks dot com>
- Subject: Re: debugging threads vs processes
- From: Jonathan Olson <jpolsonaz at mac dot com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:42:24 -0700
- Cc: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>, "'tromey at redhat dot com'" <tromey at redhat dot com>, Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, java-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
The current lack of distinction between threads and processes on
LinuxThreads
is really annoying. For example when debugging a multi-threaded process
one must type `continue' for every thread to restart the application.
On a typical
Java or multithreaded application this requires maybe a dozen
`continues'. Then,
you never know if you've actually hit another breakpoint or just
continuing another
thread stopped by the first ^C or breakpoint.
Personally, I can't see much point in having a separate `ps' or `top'
entry for
each thread entry, since all entries show exactly the same information
except
for the process ID. And killing a process is a nightmare. If you're
lucky enough
to have only one process running the application, then `killall
application' works.
However it gets really messy to figure out which of the hundreds of
threads in `ps' correspond to the process you really want to kill.
On Friday, July 13, 2001, at 01:16 PM, Cedric Berger wrote:
> I agree there is certainly some situations where the current behavior is
> useful. *BUT* there *MUST* be a switch on theses command which
> only show/use *PROCESSES*.
>
> I've currently 8 Java server application running on my server, each
> creating
> between 10 to 30 thread. Do you think Linux "top" output is very useful
> on
> my server? And I need to write a shell script just to kill one
> process :(
>
> Cedric
>
>