John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
Yes, I actually started by sorting on the raw delta and ended up going back
and fixing
pctcpu instead. However, there is a problem in this case which is that you
still want to fall back to ki_pctcpu if you don't have a valid previous delta
to compare
On May 28, 2014, at 9:54, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
Yes, I actually started by sorting on the raw delta and ended up going back
and fixing
pctcpu instead. However, there is a problem in this case which is that you
still want to fall back to ki_pctcpu if you don't have a valid
John, the changes are good.
The 'trickling' but still not idle processes now show up as they should.
However, it has exposed one quirk in the display:
Sorting is done by WCPU followed by total processor time.
Processes which aren't idle (but are using so little cpu it shows as 0.00%)
show
On Sunday, May 25, 2014 3:11:05 am Kubilay Kocak wrote:
On 24/05/2014 7:22 AM, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2014-05-23 16:05, John Baldwin wrote:
Right now, when top is set to not display idle processes or threads, it
only
displays processes or threads that are currently in a runnable state or
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 8:20:35 am Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote:
John, the changes are good.
The 'trickling' but still not idle processes now show up as they should.
However, it has exposed one quirk in the display:
Sorting is done by WCPU followed by total processor time.
Processes
On Friday, May 23, 2014 4:39:39 pm Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 201405231605.26312@freebsd.org, John Baldwin writes:
In essence, top will consider any thread that has run on a CPU
since the last update as non-idle.
Sounds a lot more usable than the current heuristic.
On 26 May 2014 11:51, Ed Maste ema...@freebsd.org wrote:
The change in the patch is good, the new behaviour is much more
usable. Note that we don't currently define idle in top(8); for
this change maybe we should just state that non-idle processes may
report 0% CPU due to rounding.
That
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:43:56 am Ed Maste wrote:
On 26 May 2014 11:51, Ed Maste ema...@freebsd.org wrote:
The change in the patch is good, the new behaviour is much more
usable. Note that we don't currently define idle in top(8); for
this change maybe we should just state that
On 25 May 2014 03:11, Kubilay Kocak ko...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 24/05/2014 7:22 AM, Allan Jude wrote:
I think this makes good sense. I would definitely prefer it. Would it
make sense to maybe preserve the old behaviour behind a command line flag?
And an update to top(8) reflecting the algo
On 24/05/2014 7:22 AM, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2014-05-23 16:05, John Baldwin wrote:
Right now, when top is set to not display idle processes or threads, it only
displays processes or threads that are currently in a runnable state or have
a
non-zero %cpu. However, our %cpu is quite
Right now, when top is set to not display idle processes or threads, it only
displays processes or threads that are currently in a runnable state or have a
non-zero %cpu. However, our %cpu is quite imprecise. I have patch to change
top to instead compare the thread or processes runtime
On 05/23/2014 15:05, John Baldwin wrote:
Right now, when top is set to not display idle processes or threads, it only
displays processes or threads that are currently in a runnable state or have
a
non-zero %cpu. However, our %cpu is quite imprecise. I have patch to change
top to instead
In message 201405231605.26312@freebsd.org, John Baldwin writes:
In essence, top will consider any thread that has run on a CPU
since the last update as non-idle.
Sounds a lot more usable than the current heuristic.
Wouldn't ki_rusage.ru_n[i]vcsw be more correct than ki_runtime ?
--
On 2014-05-23 16:05, John Baldwin wrote:
Right now, when top is set to not display idle processes or threads, it only
displays processes or threads that are currently in a runnable state or have
a
non-zero %cpu. However, our %cpu is quite imprecise. I have patch to change
top to instead
On Friday, May 23, 2014 4:39:39 pm Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 201405231605.26312@freebsd.org, John Baldwin writes:
In essence, top will consider any thread that has run on a CPU
since the last update as non-idle.
Sounds a lot more usable than the current heuristic.
15 matches
Mail list logo
