Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:57:07 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/top machine.c Message-ID: <20050419075242.H1559@epsplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20050418063659.GB85819@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <200504161543.j3GFhclO075103@repoman.freebsd.org> <86acnyd2k7.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050416191436.G68941@fledge.watson.org> <863btq4k9m.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050417110321.GA78636@gothmog.gr> <20050417222313.K946@epsplex.bde.org> <20050417135844.GA792@gothmog.gr> <20050418063659.GB85819@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 04:58:45PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> We can add a new toggle command to top, i.e. 'C', that toggles between >> displaying WCPU or CPU. This should regain us a lot of the space lost >> from COMMAND after I added THR. > > Please no. Both CPU & WCPU are quite useful on SMP systems. > I would truncate the username before loosing either CPU or WCPU. > There's a very low possibility that I couldn't figure out the user even > if 1-2 characters were trunated from it. What does CPU have to do with SMP? WCPU is the weighted CPU and differs subtly from CPU. I can't see any SMP dependencies for the usefulness of CPU vs WCPU, except possibly scheduling bugs might show up as large differences between them. Note that CPU has nothing to do with the CPU number. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050419075242.H1559>