From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 12 14:53:58 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E013106568B; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:53:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CAC8FC16; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:53:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [84.49.246.2]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0356D41C; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:53:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CB99184513; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:53:55 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Peter Jeremy References: <200911030928.nA39SjLx085597@svn.freebsd.org> <20091103214231.H23957@delplex.bde.org> <4AF4B6B2.3090706@delphij.net> <20091111230915.B3510@besplex.bde.org> <20091112050515.GA15002@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:53:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20091112050515.GA15002@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> (Peter Jeremy's message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:05:15 +1100") Message-ID: <86d43n23r0.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.95 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Xin LI , Bruce Evans , svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r198848 - head/bin/ps X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:53:58 -0000 Peter Jeremy writes: > Actually, %4.0f works up to 9999.5 %CPU because there's no '.' in the > result. I think this is an excellent solution. And since FreeBSD > currently has a hard limit of 64 CPUs, it's unlikely to be exceeded > for a while. ...if by "a while" you mean "a year or two", because I can't imagine that restriction surviving much longer than that. You can already get off-the-shelf hardware with 64 threads per die. If screen real-estate is a concern, we can switch the scale from 100 to 1, so 1.0 is full tilt on one thread, etc., and use "%.5g", which should work for up to 99999 threads (9999900%) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no