Re: high system cpu usage, no culprit in top
On April 7, 2004 09:44 am, Ken Gilmour wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 17:36, Leo Spalteholz wrote:
> > But what's accounting for the 32.1%? I have about 30% usage all the
> > time too and the top couple entries add up to less than 5 percent
> > followed by a bunch of processes with a cpu usage of 0%. So what's
> > using 25% of my cpu when I'm not doing anything?
>
> It looks like top on your machine is sorting by Memory Usage and not CPU
> usage so use "top -i" to run it in interactive mode then type "o" while
> it is running to change the order in which it displays usage. It will
> give you a prompt "Order to sort:" simply type "cpu" and this should
> sort it properly for you
It's sorting by cpu usage, and look at my output:
top - 14:03:06 up 17:15, 1 user, load average: 3.12, 3.16, 3.35
Tasks: 98 total, 1 running, 95 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie
Cpu(s): 34.9% us, 65.1% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0%
si
Mem: 256876k total, 253764k used, 3112k free, 33732k buffers
Swap: 979924k total, 71668k used, 908256k free, 61896k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ nFLT COMMAND
1832 leo 15 0 45332 23m 8004 S 3.3 9.2 3:03.53 401 wish
1618 root 15 0 102m 15m 83m S 2.0 6.0 14:01.47 315 XFree86
3936 leo 15 0 28544 12m 26m S 0.3 4.9 0:01.20 11 kdeinit
3941 leo 17 0 2088 1052 1876 R 0.3 0.4 0:00.44 0 top
1 root 16 0 1520 412 1368 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.59 22 init
So it's using 34.9% from the user and 65% from the system. I understand
top not accounting for the 65% but why does it say 34% if my cpu load is
really around 7%? (adding up the non-zero entries of cpu usage)
Is there any other way to find out what's using the cpu?
My system started doing this when I upgraded to the 2.6 kernel. Usually
when I boot its fine, then after a while cpu usage goes to 100% and stays
there.. Once in a while it will go to normal again (sometimes after a few
days of uptime) then back to 100% usage.
It's really annoying.. Could this be a misbehaving driver? How would I
find out?
Thanks,
Leo
>
> Ken
Reply to: