cheloha's "days" fix for top(1) reminded me of this diff in my tree.
original thread: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=157089317007317=2
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 01:58:43AM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 05:38:13PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > Also, just count how many
> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 01:58:43 +0200
> From: Klemens Nanni
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 05:38:13PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > Also, just count how many spaces we need to print ncpuonline,
> > then use that when printing the individual CPU lines.
> Yup, here's a minimal diff that does that
[not subscribed, please Cc, thanks]
Through the archives, me's watched this discussion with some bemusement.
Me'd like to see another option considered: just printing the device
name, instead of using the custom CPU* format.
No patch right now, might come tonight, claws full of other work :(
Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 05:38:13PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > Also, just count how many spaces we need to print ncpuonline,
> > then use that when printing the individual CPU lines.
> Yup, here's a minimal diff that does that without additional buffers and
> globals but
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 05:38:13PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> Also, just count how many spaces we need to print ncpuonline,
> then use that when printing the individual CPU lines.
Yup, here's a minimal diff that does that without additional buffers and
globals but a single local static padding;
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 11:59:30PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:52:08 -0500
> > From: Scott Cheloha
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:51:04PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:53:44AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:52:08 -0500
> From: Scott Cheloha
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:51:04PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:53:44AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > I am suggesting you put the spaces after the cpu#.
> > > Is this
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:51:04PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:53:44AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > I am suggesting you put the spaces after the cpu#.
> > Is this better?
> >
> > 4 CPUs: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin,
Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:53:44AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I am suggesting you put the spaces after the cpu#.
> Is this better?
>
> 4 CPUs: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100%
> idle
>
> CPU 0 : 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys,
> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 18:54:19 +0200
> From: Klemens Nanni
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:53:44AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I am suggesting you put the spaces after the cpu#.
> Is this better?
>
> 4 CPUs: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100%
> idle
>
>
Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:53:44AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I am suggesting you put the spaces after the cpu#.
> Is this better?
>
> 4 CPUs: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100%
> idle
>
> CPU 0 : 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys,
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:53:44AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I am suggesting you put the spaces after the cpu#.
Is this better?
4 CPUs: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100% idle
CPU 0 : 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100% idle
CPU
Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:15:52AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > CPU0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100%
> > idle
> >
> > You've solved an inconsistancy, but choosing spacing like this doesn't make
> > sense to me.
> I could make it
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:15:52AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> CPU0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100%
> idle
>
> You've solved an inconsistancy, but choosing spacing like this doesn't make
> sense to me.
I could make it always use the minimum amount of
CPU0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% sys, 0.0% spin, 0.0% intr, 100% idle
You've solved an inconsistancy, but choosing spacing like this doesn't make
sense to me.
Toggling between combined and per CPU statistics always causes the state
values to jump left or right; to make matters worse, if the window is
wider than 80 columns, per CPU lines start with "CPUx states:" instead
of "CPUx:". Examples of all three cases:
4 CPUs: 0.3% user, 0.0% nice, 0.6%
16 matches
Mail list logo
