On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2009-Nov-11 23:22:36 +1100, Bruce Evans <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Xin LI wrote:
>>> Will it sound reasonable to divide pcpu by ncpu and cap the number at 100?
>> I don't like that. It would break scripts even more than units changes.
>> It is hard for users to interpret too. Suddenly, processes taking
>> 100% of 1 CPU would take 12.5% of 8 CPUs on a system with 8 CPUs, and
>> different %CPU on systems with a different number of CPUs.
> Solaris does this. I found it particularly annoying for identifying
> spinning, single-threaded processes - it's not as immediately obvious
> that 1.6% CPU means a spinning process on a T5000, and the granularity
> gets worse.
We might eventually need an option for bug for bug compatibility with
Solaris(Olaris?)/POSIX. A %cpu format could give the divided %CPU for
anyone that wants it sooner.
>> Just print %CPU in %4.0f format when it is >= 99.5 (or whatever rounds
>> to 100.0). This works up to 999.5 %CPU.
> Actually, %4.0f works up to 9999.5 %CPU because there's no '.' in the
> result. I think this is an excellent solution. And since FreeBSD
> currently has a hard limit of 64 CPUs, it's unlikely to be exceeded
> for a while.