>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:56:38 -0800 (PST)
>From: John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> OK; that's a good & useful thing to keep in mind.  And I did see some
>> IRQ-related entries in top's output.

>Are they getting %CPU though.  When running top -S, the CPU %'s should always
>add up to about 100 (with fudges for rounding errors).

Well, as noted in another note a little prior to this one, the -CURRENT
behavior I'm seeing isn't all *that* different from the -STABLE behavior
-- in each case, the sum of what "top" reports for CPU % is normally small.

>> Eh... the "enlightenment" line may provide a clue there.  I use tvtwm as
>> a window manager.  :-}  (I figure anything that could be marginally
>> acceptable on a (maxed out) 24 MB Sun 3/60 ought to be adequate for this
>> 750 MHz/256 MB laptop....)

>Heh, but I figured Alfred was in X when he was running top, so X must've been
>doing _some_ screen updates, and not just have 0.00% CPU time. :-P

Well, that gets into a matter of perspective, since the amount of CPU
resource required to do the screen updates (vs. what is available) could
well be 0.00 (to 2 decimals)....  :-)  (Kinda like the ratio of a
circle's circumference to its diameter is "3" to a single significant

(I was in X at the time, too.)

David H. Wolfskill                              [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a computing professional, I believe it would be unethical for me to
advise, recommend, or support the use (save possibly for personal
amusement) of any product that is or depends on any Microsoft product.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to