Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 10:43:56 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Change top's notion of idle processes / threads Message-ID: <CAPyFy2B-C-Lm0EtvrHHVcgr_S-Q3oTEkPVVb1TjEuj21jkFg=Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2B1agRySh_ceqcaAM2SR=7LbVvscDQEe524HJeY2ha%2BNg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201405231605.26312.jhb@freebsd.org> <537FBC1F.6030408@freebsd.org> <53819789.8030304@FreeBSD.org> <CAPyFy2B1agRySh_ceqcaAM2SR=7LbVvscDQEe524HJeY2ha%2BNg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26 May 2014 11:51, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > > The change in the patch is good, the new behaviour is much more > usable. Note that we don't currently define "idle" in top(8); for > this change maybe we should just state that non-idle processes may > report 0% CPU due to rounding. That said, I've discovered an issue with the change after using it a bit more, when using -I on the command line. (Previously I only tried it by pressing I in interactive mode.) With the change top -I lists all processes at first (which is a little annoying), but it renders -I ineffective when used with -b (batch mode). What do you think about this additional change, so that we use the previous 0% idleness test for the first iteration of the list: if (oldp == NULL) - return (pp->ki_runtime != 0); + return (pp->ki_pctcpu != 0); -Ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2B-C-Lm0EtvrHHVcgr_S-Q3oTEkPVVb1TjEuj21jkFg=Q>