From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 18 19:30:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B9110656A4 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:30:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emaste@freebsd.org) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8708FC16 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com (192.168.222.22) by WTL-EXCH-1.sandvine.com (192.168.196.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.694.0; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:30:11 -0400 Received: by labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com (Postfix, from userid 10332) id 0F2C433C00; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:30:11 -0400 From: Ed Maste To: Dan Nelson Message-ID: <20101018193010.GA88783@sandvine.com> References: <20101018174331.GA80017@sandvine.com> <20101018181142.GC5644@dan.emsphone.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101018181142.GC5644@dan.emsphone.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ed Maste Subject: Re: CPU report in first line of "vmstat 1" is meaningless X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:30:12 -0000 On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 01:11:42PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote: > Maybe only blank it out on 32-bit machines? It's a long, and a 64-bit > cp_time value essentially won't roll over (at 1 billion increments per > second it will roll over in 500 years; we currently increment 133 times per > second, I think). If the value can be calculated accurately, it should be > printed. Well, it won't roll over, but it's still different from all following lines (in that it effectively shows user/system/idle CPU usage since boot on the first line, and a snapshot over the last interval from then on). I think it's still better to avoid printing it in that case. On a related note I'm not sure if it makes sense to have the same behaviour for the first line when an interval is set as when it is invoked with no interval. -Ed