From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 17 14:57:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CBF16A4DA for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:57:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bill@lefebvre.org) Received: from atl04.ws-e.com (vh00.ws-e.com [69.61.31.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A4B43D4C for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:57:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bill@lefebvre.org) Received: from lilburn.lefebvre.org (ocee.groupsys.com [66.149.10.161]) by atl04.ws-e.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7HEv5hB066796 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:57:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bill@lefebvre.org) Received: from [192.168.0.110] (decatur.lefebvre.org [192.168.0.110]) by lilburn.lefebvre.org (8.13.3/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k7HEv4G4061262 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:57:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bill@lefebvre.org) Message-ID: <44E483C0.6050209@lefebvre.org> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:57:04 -0400 From: Bill LeFebvre User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060425) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <44E1F796.5070105@rogers.com> <20060815172728.GB88051@dan.emsphone.com> <44E204C0.60806@rogers.com> <44E3FE61.6060800@lefebvre.org> <20060817144110.GB88424@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20060817144110.GB88424@dan.emsphone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-INFN-TO-Metrics: lilburn.lefebvre.org 1233; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.43 Subject: Re: TOP shows above 100% WCPU usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:57:06 -0000 Dan Nelson wrote: > One problem is that method doesn't scale to lots of CPUs. On a Sun > T2000 a non-threaded process consuming all of one CPU would only report > 3.12 %CPU in that case (100/32). I agree. The alternative is having a 10-thread process on such a system report 1000% cpu utilization, and/or having the sum of the cpu utilization column be 3200. Not sure which is worse. > > I just built top-3.6 on such a system, though, and it does report a > simple "main(){for(;;);}" process as consuming 100 %CPU. Maybe you're > thinking of Solaris's own prstat command? > Heh. I released 3.6 with new SunOS code that didn't adjust for number of cpus, and someone flagged the behavior as a bug. So you're right: 3.6 doesn't do it this way. But 3.5 did, and it seems at least some people prefer it that way. Bill LeFebvre