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: References: <200710111458 DOT l9BEwBoo022386 AT tigris DOT pounder DOT sol DOT net> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:39:55 -0500 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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/