Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:23:35 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Gary Corcoran <gcorcoran@rcn.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: numbers don't lie ... Message-ID: <86ejuew3ag.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <86lkomw3co.fsf@dwp.des.no> (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8r?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?grav's?= message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:22:15 %2B0200") References: <E1GNOLq-000DC2-1Q@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <863bauk3gp.fsf@dwp.des.no> <45099123.4000500@rcn.com> <86lkomw3co.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
des@des.no (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) writes: > Gary Corcoran <gcorcoran@rcn.com> writes: > > The confusing thing is that I thought 'real' time should be >= 'user' + 'sys'. > > But here 'user' is much greater than 'real' for both machines! The sense I > > got from the other messages in this thread is that 'user' time is somewhat > > meaningless (i.e. unreliable as a measure) in a multi-CPU and/or hyperthreading > > environment. Can you clarify? > real >= (user + sys) * ncpu umm, other way around of course. real * ncpu >= (user + sys) DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86ejuew3ag.fsf>