X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-Id:	<200710111639.l9BGdtRm022689@tigris.pounder.sol.net>
From:	cygzw AT trodman DOT com (Tom Rodman)
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: interpretation of %CPU in 'procps' output for multi-cpu & hyperthreading
In-reply-to:	<fele2v$d9n$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<200710111458 DOT l9BEwBoo022386 AT tigris DOT pounder DOT sol DOT net> <fele2v$d9n$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Date:	Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:39:55 -0500
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu 10/11/07 10:05 CDT Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Tom Rodman wrote:
> > Is there a way to prove that a given process with more than 1 thread,
> > is still restricted to just one CPU?
> 
> Unless you have manually set affinity, why would this be true? More 
> likely, only one thread is actually doing anything.

Thanks Matthew.

I meant to ask: 

  Is there a way to prove that a given process with more than 1
  thread, must always have all it's threads on a single CPU at
  any given time ( over the life of the process, I assume the all
  it's threads could shift from CPU to CPU)?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -