After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 697784 - optionally hide kernel threads
optionally hide kernel threads
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: system-monitor
Classification: Core
Component: process list
3.8.x
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: System-monitor maintainers
System-monitor maintainers
Depends on: 705362
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2013-04-11 11:50 UTC by Adam Dingle
Modified: 2018-05-22 12:09 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Add view mode "All userspace processes" (2.76 KB, patch)
2013-08-02 08:50 UTC, Stefano Facchini
none Details | Review

Description Adam Dingle 2013-04-11 11:50:20 UTC
Kernel threads (kthreadd, ksoftirqd and so on) clutter the process list and often are not relevant to the problem I'm trying to investigate or solve.  It would be nice to be able to hide them optionally.
Comment 1 Robert Roth 2013-04-18 13:53:53 UTC
Agreed, an option in the preferences like "Hide kernel processes" to hide the processes with parent id=2 or id=2 would be nice, with default on, as most users will never need the kernel processes.
However, I would like to avoid having the "kernel" word in the interface, "system" seems a bit too generic, and there are "system" processes like "init" or "udevd" which are "system" processes but would not be hidden by this option. Do you have a good idea on the label for this option? :)
Comment 2 Adam Dingle 2013-04-18 14:45:28 UTC
Why do you want to avoid the word "kernel", exactly?  For those who care about such things, this will be exactly the word they expect, and any other word will be potentially ambiguous or confusing.  I'd be inclined to call a spade a spade here.
Comment 3 Matthias Clasen 2013-04-19 00:59:51 UTC
One way to achieve that today is to use the treeview, and then collapse everything below kthreadd.

Instead of a separate 'hide kernel processes' boolean another view mode might be nicer: 'All userspace processes' ?
Comment 4 Robert Roth 2013-04-19 06:25:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> One way to achieve that today is to use the treeview, and then collapse
> everything below kthreadd.
> 
kthreadd should be collapsed by default in tree mode.

> Instead of a separate 'hide kernel processes' boolean another view mode might
> be nicer: 'All userspace processes' ?

Sounds like a plan to me, and I like it better than another preference.
Comment 5 Stefano Facchini 2013-08-02 08:50:47 UTC
Created attachment 250671 [details] [review]
Add view mode "All userspace processes"
Comment 6 Stefano Facchini 2013-08-02 09:01:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created an attachment (id=250671) [details] [review]
> Add view mode "All userspace processes"

Well, maybe this is hiding too much, not only kernel threads but all root processes.
Comment 7 Robert Roth 2013-08-02 10:01:39 UTC
Yes, that's right, I have already tried that. I have locally created a libgtop version which does filter out processes with parent=2 (kthreadd children) or parent = 0 (init and kthreadd), leaving us only with the subtree of init, I think. I think this is closer to what we would like. However, I have implemented it only for linux (libgtop also supports BSDs, and some others), I don't know if it will be accepted in libgtop if it supports only linux, and looking at the libgtop git commit log, there was no release lately, so even if it would get accepted, I don't know when it would be released. So the best would be if someone using Open/FreeBSD could step up for testing it (the implementation would look similar to the linux one for these too, with minor changes, but I wouldn't commit it without building it on free/openbsd).

I WANT to see root processes, and I know I have the All processes filter, but "My processes" and "Userspace processes" than would not really differ too much :) But maybe that's just me (I have 45% my processes, 45% root processes and 10% other users processes). As far as I can see, this ticket is rather about hiding kthreadd and children rather than all root processes.
Comment 8 Stefano Facchini 2013-08-02 10:30:09 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)

Yeah I agree that the GLIBTOP_KERN_EXCLUDE_SYSTEM flag is basically wrong.


> I don't know if it will be accepted in libgtop if it supports only linux, and
> looking at the libgtop git commit log, there was no release lately, so even if
> it would get accepted, I don't know when it would be released.

Well, libgtop seems pretty much unmaintained, so I guess that a new maintainer will be most welcomed ;)

If you have the patch somewhere (bugzilla? git brach?), I'd like to try it.

As for *BSD systems, I don't think that having a new feature unimplemented is a blocker, we could just make it a no-op and wait for someone to add/test it (with properly ifdef'd code in System Monitor)
Comment 9 Robert Roth 2013-08-02 15:42:04 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> Well, libgtop seems pretty much unmaintained, so I guess that a new maintainer
> will be most welcomed ;)
Yeah, maybe I will try, not a bad idea.
> 
> If you have the patch somewhere (bugzilla? git brach?), I'd like to try it.
Bug #705362 in libgtop filed, with patch attached.
Comment 10 GNOME Infrastructure Team 2018-05-22 12:09:45 UTC
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to GNOME's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/issues/37.