From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 18 08:31:19 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 20F4816A4DD for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:31:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C7643D58 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:31:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (c220-239-19-236.belrs4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.239.19.236]) by mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7I8VFeh000404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:31:16 +1000 Received: from turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (localhost.vk2pj.dyndns.org [127.0.0.1]) by turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7I8VFhE000859; Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:31:15 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org) Received: (from peter@localhost) by turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k7I8VFA2000858; Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:31:15 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:31:15 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: Bill LeFebvre Message-ID: <20060818083115.GB732@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <44E1F796.5070105@rogers.com> <20060815172728.GB88051@dan.emsphone.com> <44E204C0.60806@rogers.com> <44E3FE61.6060800@lefebvre.org> <20060817144110.GB88424@dan.emsphone.com> <44E483C0.6050209@lefebvre.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44E483C0.6050209@lefebvre.org> X-PGP-Key: http://members.optusnet.com.au/peterjeremy/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:31:19 -0000 --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2006-Aug-17 10:57:04 -0400, Bill LeFebvre wrote: >Dan Nelson wrote: >>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= =20 >cpus, and someone flagged the behavior as a bug. So you're right: 3.6=20 >doesn't do it this way. But 3.5 did, and it seems at least some people=20 >prefer it that way. I actually prefer this new behaviour. One of my major uses of top is identifying processes that are spinning for one reason or another. Having a process show up as 99-100% is quite obvious and I can then look closer to see if that process is validly using 100% CPU or not. Having a process using 3.1% CPU (on a 32-CPU system) would be far less obvious. (In my case, I'm scanning instaneous top outputs from ~60 hosts so I don't want to have to study each output too closely). To my way of thinking, %CPU is a percentage of a single CPU. If a box has 32 CPUs, then maximum load is 3200% of a single CPU. I think there are probably equally good rationales for each approach. Probably the best situation is a flag to toggle between the two approaches, together with two different titles to make it clear which is being used. --=20 Peter Jeremy --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE5XrT/opHv/APuIcRAnOZAJwIEpTRBTzgVyCv6ttpSqeAKgwNmACfTF8G ah96BnUIT9P5pooQboUFRAY= =Sz9I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx--