From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 29 07:23:27 2008 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 F0D2F106568B; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:23:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (unknown [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3E48FC15; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:23:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m8T7NP8G064171; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:23:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id m8T7NPiL064170; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:23:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:23:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200809290723.m8T7NPiL064170@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, koitsu@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-current User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.4-PRERELEASE-20080904 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:23:26 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: Request for testing - top 3.8b1 in the base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, koitsu@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:23:28 -0000 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 03:46:45PM -0400, William LeFebvre wrote: > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 02:24:09PM +0200, Nikola Le??i?? wrote: > > > > Is it normal to have 100.64% for cc1? > > > > > > I would assume so, as your machine has more than one logical or > > > physical processor. > > > > > > > No, that was a per-thread display he posted. Altho undesirable I can > > come up with some plausible reasons why it is exceeding 100%, all > > related to the uncertainty of trying to perform accurate measurements on > > a moving target. I suppose I could cap the percentage at 100 just for > > aesthetic reasons, and to keep it from overflowing the column. > > Ah ha. That could also explain why gstat(8) has the same problem > (%busy column occasionally being >100, sometimes 102-103%). A simple & > 100 on the displayed value should suffice, yep. I think the reason why gstat(8) occasionally displays values > 100% is that it doesn't know which value exactly *is* 100%. The %busy column should probably be regarded as a relative measurement and not be taken to provide a precise number. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." -- Robert Firth