On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:37 PM Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/5/19 5:26 AM, makepost wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:34:02AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > >> 400%cpu 22%user 0%nice 9%sys 370%idle 0%iow 0%irq 0%sirq > >> 0%host > >> The 400% cpu means it's a 4x SMP system, that's the total available CPU. > >> > >> 370% idle means 30% of one CPU is used (22% user and 9% sys, mostly > >> chromium > >> background noise), and the remaining 3 and 3/4 processor time is idle. > > > > Sorry. I didn't immediately remember this was intentional. > > I could change it to say 4xSMP perhaps? > > I could also have it display 400-idle, but the reason I didn't do that is if > you > sit down at a machine you're unfamiliar with you don't immediateley know what > the numbers mean without the reference. > > Sigh. The htop bar graph (or text equivalent, ala CPU:100 37 100 0) gives > you > the actual info.
and automatically scales to MiB and GiB as appropriate, because KiB is too small even on a phone these days :-P (actually, that's only true in the bar graphs. in the process list, it's using color to make KiB readable... it'll use GiB/MiB for large things, but for small stuff it uses KiB and colors the digits representing MiB in blue. that's really weird.) > (Cosmetic issues are _hard_. There isn't a right answer, or at least no > empirical test for one.) i think another interesting thing here is the conflict between humans and machines. i did wonder whether -- no matter what we do elsewhere -- `top -b` should use KiB because it's the best data the machine can give to another machine, and that's what -b is for. every time we change any of this stuff, somewhere a badly-written script fails. but i still think the Mem: and Swap: lines are worse now they're back in KiB. > > Had a busybox > > window aside, and it got no total field for CPU count, starts with user > > percentage. Toybox differing in that it lets 100% represent one core > > rather than all CPUs, across all fields, was clear from the varying 370% > > in idle, so the total may be unnecessary: > > It was clear in your use case, on a machine you were already familiar with. > > The individual processes go from 0-100% of a processor, I.E. 0-100% of what a > single process (thread) can use. Then the numbers up top are what you get if > you > add those up, I.E. are in the same scale as the numbers below. But the numbers > up top aren't describing a process, they're describing the machine. 100% of > the > machine is tough to describe with SMP (hyper-threading, burst mode, etc. And > don't get me started on cache local vs memory bus limited...) > > >> 400%cpu 22%user 0%nice 9%sys 370%idle 0%iow 0%irq 0%sirq > >> 0%host > >> ^ ^ ^ > > > > But some redundancy is okay, just got confused. Never mind. > > It's a useful data point. It needs to be improved. It's on the todo list. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Toybox mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
