From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 30 05:30:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6259916A4CE for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:30:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E968943D5A for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:30:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) id iAU5Ufro019907; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:30:41 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:30:41 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20041130053040.GL5518@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20041128233704.GB62951@NitroPhys.welchsmnet.net> <20041129154805.GD5518@dan.emsphone.com> <41AB8174.4090205@elischer.org> <20041129205408.GH5518@dan.emsphone.com> <41AB9151.8070601@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41AB9151.8070601@elischer.org> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Sean Welch Subject: Re: top under 5.3-RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:30:46 -0000 In the last episode (Nov 29), Julian Elischer said: > understood.. but when 'ps' gets the information, it gets each > thread.. where does the info get stored? the threads may have just > flashed into existence a fraction of a second ago, and prior to that > thay may have belonged to a compeltely different process. It's not a > simple problem. However there may be some relatively "ok" answers if > we can define well enough what we want to see. For example all > taking the total cputime for the KSEGRP and dividing it by the number > of non-sleeping threads might be a possibility. (or some variant of > that). Is the real problem that %CPU and WCPU are no longer used by the schedulers in any meaningful way? I thought at one point they were used to dampen the priority of cpu-intensive proceses. Maybe they should be removed and replaced with some other counters that can record cpu usage better. %CPU can certainly be extracted by subtracting the "struct rusage" values every sampling interval; unixtop does that for quite a few OSes where %CPU isn't available or is useless. WCPU is nice to get a longer-term picture of what processes are consistently using CPU though. I suppose top could maintain its own running average by averaging its calculated %CPU over an interval, but ps couldn't. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com