...making Linux just a little more fun!

### 480% CPU?

Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:07:52 +0100

Would anyone care to hazard a guess why top is claiming that the top 3 process are between them using 480% CPU on a dual core box?

Neil

Top Back

Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:09:27 -0400

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:07:52PM +0100, Neil Youngman wrote:

    > Would anyone care to hazard a guess why top is claiming that the top 3 process
    > are between them using 480% CPU on a dual core box?

In my experience, 'top' sometimes goes off into lulu land and claims silly crap. For some reason - I recall that someone explained it to me once, but I've lost the index to the brain cells containing the explanation - it has a problem with some processes (e.g. XFree86) which do some strange thing that 'top' can't cope with - so it just lies.

In other words, put not your complete trust in the reports of 'top'; 'tis a weak reed.

    A prudent navigator will never limit himself to a single method,
    particularly one requiring ... a device that is subject to mechanical
    damage or loss.
     -- Nathaniel Bowditch, compiler of the first American compendium on
    	navigation

It would be interesting to go through all the possible combinations of the three processes (if possible) to get a better handle on what triggers it, though.

Does the machine actually bog when you see this report, or is it just showing this stuff without any external effect?

    --
    * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *

Top Back

Neil Youngman [Neil.Youngman at youngman.org.uk]

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:27:44 +0100

On Monday 22 October 2007 18:09, Ben Okopnik wrote:

    > It would be interesting to go through all the possible combinations of
    > the three processes (if possible) to get a better handle on what
    > triggers it, though.

They're all running today and top is behaving perfectly normally. I did observe that pressing 'I' changed the output, so that 480% became more like 250%. This seems to be an "Irix mode" toggle and I have no idea why it should make any difference. Also I see little point in choosing between 2 different values of wrong, unless it offers any further clues.

    > Does the machine actually bog when you see this report, or is it just
    > showing this stuff without any external effect?

No, they were all 'nice 19' processes, BOINC clients and the like, and the system was coping just fine.

Neil

Top Back

Karl-Heinz Herrmann [khh at khherrmann.de]

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:26:53 +0200

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:27:44 +0100 Neil Youngman <Neil.Youngman at youngman.org.uk> wrote:

    > observe that pressing 'I' changed the output, so that 480% became
    > more like 250%. This seems to be an "Irix mode" toggle and I have no
    > idea why it should

Maybe you could also try to press "1" -- then all CPUs will be shown individually.

K.-H.

Top Back

Neil Youngman [Neil.Youngman at youngman.org.uk]

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:58:36 +0100

On Tuesday 23 October 2007 22:26, Karl-Heinz Herrmann wrote:

    > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:27:44 +0100
    >
    > Neil Youngman <Neil.Youngman at youngman.org.uk> wrote:
    > > observe that pressing 'I' changed the output, so that 480% became
    > > more like 250%. This seems to be an "Irix mode" toggle and I have no
    > > idea why it should
    >
    > Maybe you could also try to press "1" -- then all CPUs will be shown
    > individually.

Yeah, that showed individual CPU stats which were phone, but the process stats were still garbage.

Neil

Top Back

Jim Jackson [jj at franjam.org.uk]

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:21:15 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Neil Youngman wrote:

    > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 22:26, Karl-Heinz Herrmann wrote:
    > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:27:44 +0100
    > >
    > > Neil Youngman <Neil.Youngman at youngman.org.uk> wrote:
    > > > observe that pressing 'I' changed the output, so that 480% became
    > > > more like 250%. This seems to be an "Irix mode" toggle and I have no
    > > > idea why it should
    > >
    > > Maybe you could also try to press "1" -- then all CPUs will be shown
    > > individually.
    >
    > Yeah, that showed individual CPU stats which were phone, but the process stats
    > were still garbage.

I recall a thread on lkml prompted by bizarre TOP figures.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/3/123

this contribution seems to imply there were problems with dual core AMD64 see...

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/3/276

but there were other issues around an actual kernel bug.

A change of kernel may get rid of the problem?

Top Back