[procps] Re: C-States handling - new switch?
- From: Jim Warner <james.warner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:09:25 -0600
On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote:
>
> I really thought You want to make the procps better.
I do and you just helped achieve that with the Nehalem quirk which I think
we've addressed once Craig applies that final patch. Solved, at least, until
we get some customer feedback.
Incidentally, the threshold was changed to 20% of *expected* tics. Below that
amount, rather than display potentially distorted percentages, such a core will
show as 100% idle. And the top program is poised to eventually put that
percentage under maintainer or even user control.
Now try me once again on the problem as you see it. Exactly what kind of
switch are you envisioning and what would be its effect?
Don't worry about implementation details just stick to the user interface.
Jim
p.s. oops, I saw that horse wiggle, so I guess we have a little more time...
Other related posts:
