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