On 27-Mar-01 David Wolfskill wrote:
>>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.

-STABLE doesn't have idle processes. :)

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

Fair enough..


John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

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

Reply via email to