From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 2 16:00:04 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C852A16A401 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:00:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from mail.potentialtech.com (internet.potentialtech.com [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9323E13C4B5 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:00:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from vanquish.pgh.priv.collaborativefusion.com (pr40.pitbpa0.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D155EBC55; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:52:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:40:57 -0500 From: Bill Moran To: "Grant Peel" Message-Id: <20070302104057.d07c6d1b.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <003301c75cda$dad952d0$6501a8c0@GRANT> References: <002401c75cd9$1a1e7210$6501a8c0@GRANT> <20070302095103.d6fbb8b3.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <003301c75cda$dad952d0$6501a8c0@GRANT> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.0 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:00:04 -0000 Please don't top-post. Please don't turn public discussions into private ones. Please read: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/freebsd-questions/index.html Format recovered, response in-line. In response to "Grant Peel" : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Moran" > > > In response to "Grant Peel" : > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> FreeBSD 'top' 6.n does not seem to show anything when the i flag (don't > >> display idle processes). the whole display (below the mem and cpu > >> information header) goes blank. > >> > >> Any ideas? > > > > Maybe all your processes are idle? What's the header look like when you > > do this? 99.9% idle, perhaps? > > I have seen it drop to < 50% idle, with no process showing. Again, this is > when 'i' is selected. > > HEre is a quick capture I was able to get, note nothing showing in the > process section. This had to be set to 5 secs refresh as I couldn't capture > the cup usage fast enough at 1 second. I played with this a bit. It seems that top calculates whether a process is "idle" or not with a heavy bias toward "idle". I didn't look in to the code, but it seems like a process has to be running for the lion's share of the calculated timeslice for it to be considered non-idle. I don't know if this is intended behaviour or not, but it's not "broken", at worst it's "badly dinged" ;) Try this in another shell while watching top: while true; do STUFF="$PATH"; done and it will show up. My guess is that your usage is caused by many small processes, each taking up a small portion of the total CPU, but none taking up enough CPU to be considered non-idle by top. > > > last pid: 20389; load averages: 0.01, 0.23, 0.38 > up 93+11:18:57 09:53:35 > 106 processes: 2 running, 102 sleeping, 2 zombie > CPU states: 8.0% user, 0.0% nice, 1.5% system, 0.0% interrupt, 90.5% > idle > Mem: 191M Active, 64M Inact, 125M Wired, 3768K Cache, 60M Buf, 110M Free > Swap: 2048M Total, 189M Used, 1859M Free, 9% Inuse, 4K In > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com