From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 27 14:43:58 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B13F546;
 Tue, 27 May 2014 14:43:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19A53215C;
 Tue, 27 May 2014 14:43:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id q107so14113442qgd.15
 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
 :from:to:content-type;
 bh=1T1GKcQX1WFhphp8UQd/mnoqOQ/jsHjElpgV+6VbfHc=;
 b=ZZatOsATHr9WpLDiqTeutdyCKif9W7mZiPV6MSQEV1cbaIwm+V1nYQfk38lWhMy/o5
 1ScJRZfAC5J0KmwMf9rsrBGn0z4H3V5YHyQEqXW7fO3FJwEiEL3CsGk/jTectYzvZ6ha
 02ql08v93gOAxxLImIrK4/rbiAwmk5pPAxyTacOTTdXYyiQ6E4hOddCIDTjTS2MMdi82
 dwF4d/hgIjyq6dVewO6o7tVyuohxrPAJx3aRaHyS52O23BaXQok4nXnkc3czSi35HQss
 FJbOZMGHYbI70oDqC8EXdorVnJZUJ6h2k2gwx0yaDpBlqSLGLMS/qLT8bhpq9aFBuSdK
 qEYQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.26.179 with SMTP id 48mr41574958qgv.51.1401201837074;
 Tue, 27 May 2014 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: carpeddiem@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.49.239 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2B1agRySh_ceqcaAM2SR=7LbVvscDQEe524HJeY2ha+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201405231605.26312.jhb@freebsd.org> <537FBC1F.6030408@freebsd.org>
 <53819789.8030304@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAPyFy2B1agRySh_ceqcaAM2SR=7LbVvscDQEe524HJeY2ha+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 10:43:56 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AOJU50g1VAZakOAln1Ei9HAxz-0
Message-ID: <CAPyFy2B-C-Lm0EtvrHHVcgr_S-Q3oTEkPVVb1TjEuj21jkFg=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Change top's notion of idle processes / threads
From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>
To: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,
 John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:43:58 -0000

On 26 May 2014 11:51, Ed Maste <emaste@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 said, I've discovered an issue with the change after using it a
bit more, when using -I on the command line.  (Previously I only tried
it by pressing I in interactive mode.)  With the change top -I lists
all processes at first (which is a little annoying), but it renders -I
ineffective when used with -b (batch mode).

What do you think about this additional change, so that we use the
previous 0% idleness test for the first iteration of the list:

 if (oldp == NULL)
- return (pp->ki_runtime != 0);
+ return (pp->ki_pctcpu != 0);

-Ed