1630898 - [meta] Ensure that all threads are labeled

Status: NEW

(Core :: XPCOM, task, P2)

Description

[David Teller [:Yoric] - still alive but not very active]

Whenever we create a thread, we need to make sure that it has a label.
This will be necessary to have intelligible output in bug 1628531.

Comment 1

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

We probably don't need to include threads in the initial version of Fission's about:processes page (bug 1628531), but labeling threads would be useful for debugging and profiling in general.

Moving to the XPCOM component.

Comment 2

[Tom S [:evilpie]]

Seems like most threads have a label, except for browser process where all of the are just ???.

Comment 3

[David Teller [:Yoric] - still alive but not very active]

Yeah, I added ??? when there's no name, as a subtle suggestion to whoever created those threads that they really should give it a name :)

I'll investigate this next.

Comment 4

[Kris Wright :KrisWright]

At least for nsThreads in particular we've talked about adding either a MOZ_ASSERT or a step in NoNewThreadsChecker that will fail if threads are given no name. I think I named all the old NS_NewThread calls when I got rid of NS_NewThread though IIRC there's still some not-so-descriptive thread names in there anyways, like thread. So for the most part those are labeled (even if the label isn't very good).

Comment 5

[David Teller [:Yoric] - still alive but not very active]

Bug 1638138 fixes most of the missing names. It's actually a typo in the code that gets the names from the OS.

There are still a couple of threads without name. I've just checked, it's not any use of nsThread. Investigating further :)

Comment 6

[Neha Kochar [:neha]]

David, since we no longer show threads in about:processes, this shouldn't block the meta bug 1628531 now, right?

Comment 7

[David Teller [:Yoric] - still alive but not very active]

You're right, unblocking.