From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun  8 20:50:55 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305E216A448;
	Wed,  8 Jun 2005 20:50:54 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from lists@natserv.com)
Received: from mail1.acecape.com (mail1.acecape.com [66.114.74.12])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C553D43D48;
	Wed,  8 Jun 2005 20:50:53 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from lists@natserv.com)
Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147])
	by mail1.acecape.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j58Koq1r002526;
	Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:50:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:50:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com>
X-X-Sender: fran@zoraida.natserv.net
To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050608203513.GA2265@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org>
Message-ID: <20050608164934.Q11353@zoraida.natserv.net>
References: <20050608145053.B10686@zoraida.natserv.net>
	<1118256882.76070.0.camel@server.mcneil.com>
	<20050608203513.GA2265@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: FreeBSD amd64 List <freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Top broken in AMD64?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform <freebsd-amd64.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64>,
	<mailto:freebsd-amd64-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-amd64-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64>,
	<mailto:freebsd-amd64-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:50:55 -0000

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Andreas Klemm wrote:

> In former time that was different.
> Unluckily I don't remember when this changed.
> Even if its not a bug it limits the usefulness of top.

I agree. Specially when one has utilization close to 100% and nothing 
shows up in top as using more than 0.0%. :-(