On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 13:59 -0400, Grok Mogger wrote: > Karl E. Jorgensen wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:43:50PM -0400, Grok Mogger wrote: > >> In this interpretation, "wa" is really like "blocked" CPU time. > >> The CPU has processes that are not really doing anything, > >> because they are waiting on slow hard disks and network I/O, > >> *but* these waiting processes still prevent that much CPU from > >> being used. > > > > A couple of experiments: > > > > # dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null > > > > is obviously IO-bound. wa% goes sky-high, idle% goes toward zero. > > > > $ while true ; do > > : > > done > > > > is cpu-bound. us% goes high, wa%, id% and ni% goes towards zero. > > > > Finally, run both at the same time. Result: us% goes high, everthing > > else goes towards zero. This matches interpretation A, not B. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > Thanks, that's rather ingenious! And it does help a lot. > > If anyone else has any comments, I'd love to hear them. > Particularly if you have some reason why you think > Interpretation B is correct, since A seems to be the winner. I was going through the "procps" source files and looking at everything. I opened up many files looking at how things are read and interpreted. Karl pretty much nailed it. Though, doing those kinds of things on a "production" machine would get you KEELD! Yes, they are ingenious. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part