From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 25 08:45:33 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 001A516A404; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:45:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danger@FreeBSD.org) Received: from virtual.micronet.sk (smtp.micronet.sk [84.16.32.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E8E13C467; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:45:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danger@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtual.micronet.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CDB10E74F; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:26:42 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at virtual.micronet.sk Received: from virtual.micronet.sk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (virtual.micronet.sk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQ3uCMin9IRQ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:26:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from DANGER-PC (danger.mcrn.sk [84.16.37.254]) by virtual.micronet.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FD010E731; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:26:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:29:45 +0100 From: Daniel Gerzo X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.99.3) Professional Organization: The FreeBSD Project X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1172441424.20080225092945@rulez.sk> To: Jeff Roberson In-Reply-To: <20080224124342.E920@desktop> References: <845250.18624.qm@web63909.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <47BF5702.3020204@FreeBSD.org> <47BF8EB7.9090007@barafranca.com> <47BFB70F.5080402@FreeBSD.org> <20080224124342.E920@desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re[2]: cpu usage in 7.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Gerzo List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:45:33 -0000 Hello Jeff, Sunday, February 24, 2008, 11:47:39 PM, you wrote: >> So how does a multithreaded process get 458% CPU on a quad-core machine? :) >> (Really, I want to know; I thought thread CPU accounting was fixed in 7.x. >> Unless I'm mistaken, 4 CPU-intensive threads in a single process should >> account as 4 CPU-intensive single-thread processes; i.e. each could only take >> up to 100% of a core/CPU, accounting for NCPU*100% total). >> >> > It is possible for the sum of all threads in the system to exceed 100% > cpu. This is because the decay function is not precise. 15% over is a > bit more than I would expect but I suppose it's possible. We also inhert > pcpu information from the parent on fork/thread creation so the child > isn't created with a priority as if it had been idle. So for a moment the > utilization is duplicated. I have a box running mysqld, which sometimes exeeds 130%, what about this? ;) Also the mysqld is alsmost all the time in the "ucond" state, what does it mean? I've been told that it is probably waiting for I/O, but then, I have another box which is currently completely idle, but running mysql shows that it is "ucond" as well. -- Best regards, Daniel mailto:danger@FreeBSD.org