Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!altos!megadon!clp
From: bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.unix
Subject: Re: How to find process name in c
Message-ID: <2234@megadon.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 90 18:18:47 GMT
References: <2207@megadon.UUCP>
Sender: clp@megadon.UUCP
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ
Lines: 34
Approved: clp@megadon.UUCP
In-Reply-To: <2223@megadon.UUCP>
Cc:

>In article <2207@megadon.UUCP>,
>	bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>
>>and doing 'time ps -ef' vs. 'time popenpsef' a few times,
>>I get these results:
>
>[bogus conclusion about 'ps' behavior deleted]

Mostly bogus :-).

The perceived user-time isn't bogus at all.  The program
returns to the caller (whether command-line or script)
_much_ faster when the pclose() is left to the kernel.

This probably does require more real CPU time and
definitely more kernel-mode time, but less user time,
which (I'm glad this is a moderated group or this would
start a purists-vs-pragmatists flame war) is what we're
paid for, really.

>Therefore, the timing statistics
>refer only to the run time of "popenpsef" itself only.

I prefer to think of it as an "executive" who's
"delegated" the dirty work.

>Here's the statistics as generated on my system.  BTW, timing was done using
>the built-in command of the csh, which seems (by the output format) to be
>what you used as well.

Yes, it was.

				--Blair
				  "Sometimes, it pays."