On Mon Oct 18 10, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Oct 18), Ed Maste said: > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 01:11:42PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote: > > > Maybe only blank it out on 32-bit machines? It's a long, and a 64-bit > > > cp_time value essentially won't roll over (at 1 billion increments per > > > second it will roll over in 500 years; we currently increment 133 times > > > per second, I think). If the value can be calculated accurately, it > > > should be printed. > > > > Well, it won't roll over, but it's still different from all following > > lines (in that it effectively shows user/system/idle CPU usage since boot > > on the first line, and a snapshot over the last interval from then on). I > > think it's still better to avoid printing it in that case. > > It is documented to do that, though, and could affect scripts that expect to > see average-since-boot info on the first line. iostat does the same, btw. > > > On a related note I'm not sure if it makes sense to have the same > > behaviour for the first line when an interval is set as when it is > > invoked with no interval. don't know if you have seen this, but this behavior has been documented in a PR back in 2001: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/30360 cheers. alex > > -- > Dan Nelson > dnelson_at_allantgroup.com -- a13xReceived on Mon Oct 18 2010 - 22:11:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:08 UTC