M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I'd argue that as we get more and more cores that %CPU will need to
> change.
>
> If we change it like Bruce suggests, then when we have 1024
> core/thread processors the 'pegged' thread shows up as 0.09% of the
> CPU and likely nothing else shows up at all since the usages are
> diluted by a factor of 1024.
>
> However, for the 'TOP' display, 102400% of the CPU seems like a crazy
> thing to report, even if it is consistent with what other systems
> report for fewer cores going back to 1980's when VMS reported up to
> 200% CPU for the VAX 11/785 on both BSD and VMS.
>
> Likewise, we have issues with our current TOP display eating up a
> bunch of columns for 55670k of core when 56M would generally give the
> same info to the user (I say generally, because the former is useful
> in watching for memory leaks).
>
> Maybe we just need to have top offer different views into this data
> for the different needs that people have for it. A 'detailed' view
> that helps expose even small differences that is useful in
> development, and a 'condensed' version that gives more of the general
> sense of what's going on in the system in a more concise format, but
> might lack some of the details found today.
>
If you select -H (all threads showing), then give it as a% of a
single CPU.
they can never be > 100% per thread.
for non -H show aggregate.
> Here's where my bikeshed proximity detector starts beeping...
>
> Warner