After the printa I think you need a trunc. > trunc(@a); Shouldn`t your output be pid, tid, time in seconds ? is this output post processed ?
what does the original output look like ? rick PS I would think timestamp/nanosec would be subject to rounding errors. On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 01:49:05PM -0700, tester wrote: > X-CAA-SPAM: N00000 > X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=C5hH5D9sZx7oBLYfm9Qeni98yGeIDIO6Mit34naBfEk= > c=1 sm=1 a=Rf9Kass9ZIkA:10 a=ood2b7iyd8MA:10 a=mMDRw7eodGMA:10 > a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zRG8QCroJ/deLx9kZ5Uhsg==:17 a=ep_KMAzDAAAA:8 > a=Dc4nqrrUMXSxFipiTD0A:9 a=jCEtMmcRhls7fIlIBkU65qnZ4ocA:4 > a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=RD1bzJOsQUcA:10 a=TC1Ce7_l9HwA:10 > a=t6jm5M9rnSlXE7un:21 a=1GJxXsc5shYW460U:21 > a=zRG8QCroJ/deLx9kZ5Uhsg==:117 > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on > lv-drc6.opensolaris.org > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, > RDNS_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 > X-Original-To: dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org > Delivered-To: dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org > Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:49:05 PDT > From: tester <solaris.ident...@gmail.com> > To: dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: [dtrace-discuss] precision thread CPU usage > X-BeenThere: dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 > Precedence: list > List-Id: DTrace General Discussion <dtrace-discuss.opensolaris.org> > List-Unsubscribe: > <http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/options/dtrace-discuss>, > <mailto:dtrace-discuss-requ...@opensolaris.org?subject=unsubscribe> > List-Archive: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/dtrace-discuss> > List-Post: <mailto:dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org> > List-Help: <mailto:dtrace-discuss-requ...@opensolaris.org?subject=help> > List-Subscribe: > <http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/dtrace-discuss>, > <mailto:dtrace-discuss-requ...@opensolaris.org?subject=subscribe> > Errors-To: dtrace-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org > > Hi, > > I am trying to figure out accurate thread CPU utilization using the sched > provider. When I sample for 5 seconds and multiply by the number of CPU > threads, the reported seconds exceeds 5s X number of CPU threads. > > sched:::on-cpu > /self->ts == 0/ > { > self->ts = timestamp/nanosec; > } > > sched:::off-cpu > /self->ts != 0/ > { > > @a[pid,tid] = sum((timestamp/nanosec) - self->ts); > self->ts = 0; > > } > > tick-5s { > > trunc(@a,10); > printa(@a); > > } > > ===================== > Here is the output > > 3-------------1----------3 > 1982----------165-------3 > 6039----------52571---3 > 12110---------6006-----6 > 1982----------25785---8 > 1982----------25930--8 > 12110---------5996-----9 > 6039----------52902----12 > 11359----------3006-----14 > 0-------------0----------4751 > > The total of the above exceeds 5X256 (T5440 with 256CPU threads). Any ideas? > > Thanks > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > dtrace-discuss mailing list > dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Rickey C. Weisner Software Development and Performance Specialist Principal Software Engineer Systems Quality Office Oracle Corporation cell phone: 615-308-1147 email: rick.weis...@oracle.com _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
