Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:16:13 -0600 From: Sean Welch <Sean_Welch@alum.wofford.org> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: top under 5.3-RELEASE Message-ID: <20041129161613.GA53189@NitroPhys.welchsmnet.net> In-Reply-To: <20041129154805.GD5518@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20041128233704.GB62951@NitroPhys.welchsmnet.net> <20041129154805.GD5518@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:48:05AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > For things like port builds, you end up with a lot of very short-lived > processes (sh, sed, cc, etc). Those either don't show up in top at all > becuase they have started and exited between the sampling intervals, or > else have not accumulated enough CPU time to register any %CPU (which > is a weighted average over time). Ah. Thank you for filling me in. > The values should total up better when you have processes that hang > around a bit more. There was a regression in 5.3's libpthreads that > can make it report 0 CPU, so if you have some CPU-hungry threaded > programs, they may not show up in top at all even though they're using > 100% cpu. libthr and libc_r report CPU correctly. Okay. Mostly what I've been seeing so far is the first scenario (as I'm still trying to set up the system the way I like it), but I'll file away the second for when I start hammering it in normal use. Sean
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041129161613.GA53189>