From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 15 17:30:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F4516A655 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:30:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from H43.C18.B96.tor.eicat.ca (H43.C18.B96.tor.eicat.ca [66.96.18.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7B643D8E for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:30:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (desktop.home.local [172.16.0.200]) by H43.C18.B96.tor.eicat.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F66D1141A; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44E204C0.60806@rogers.com> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:30:40 -0400 From: Mike Jakubik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Nelson References: <44E1F796.5070105@rogers.com> <20060815172728.GB88051@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20060815172728.GB88051@dan.emsphone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SpamToaster-Information: This messages has been scanned by SpamToaster http://www.digitalprogression.ca X-SpamToaster: Found to be clean X-SpamToaster-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.808, required 3.5, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL -0.32, BAYES_00 -2.60, DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME 0.00, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 1.71) X-SpamToaster-From: mikej@rogers.com X-Spam-Status: No Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TOP shows above 100% WCPU usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:30:24 -0000 Dan Nelson wrote: >> How can mysql use 160%? Is this a reporting bug in top because mysql is >> threaded? >> > > You have multiple CPUs, so a threaded process can theoretically reach > 100*ncpus cpu usage. > > Ahh, thats makes sense, thanks.