[procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch?
- From: Jim Warner <james.warner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:06:06 -0600
On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote: > Do You consider it a good idea to introduce a new > switch for considering the off state as idle state? Hi Jaromir, Some random thoughts on your email... . Your output could not have been produced by the command line shown. . Perhaps the procps-ng top should have been used, not the 3.2.8 version. . Maybe the kernel should provide a new /proc/stat cpu "off" state category. . If we had a new state, we've already exhausted an 80 column display. Some possible approaches... . I could force a 100% idle result for the off state using a single line of code subordinate to an existing conditional. But then one would loose the ability to distinguish an idle cpu from an one which was turned off. . Maybe we should keep the current 'anomaly' and simply address the off state potential in the man document. . A user switch (or compile option?) could be added so if no tics were recorded for a particular cpu the displayed line should simply say "100.0% off" or just "off" with no other categories shown. However, this approach might be unpleasant under a small delay interval. Comments would be welcomed. Regards, Jim
- Follow-Ups:
- [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch?
- From: Jim Warner
- [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch?
- From: Jaromir Capik
- [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch?
- References:
- [procps] C-States handling - new switch?
- From: Jaromir Capik
- [procps] C-States handling - new switch?
Other related posts:
- » [procps] C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Craig Small
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Craig Small
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Craig Small
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Craig Small
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jim Warner
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik
- » [procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch? - Jaromir Capik