nate writes:
> there was a SMP patch for procps a couple years ago,
> which also added SMP support to top.
That's very buggy and obsolete. Something like it
went into Red Hat; better code is in debian-unstable.
> I remember the 'ps' from it would show which
> processor a process was on. So look
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 05:56:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 17:50, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Be careful of applying the words "older" and "newer" to procps. There
> > are two forks of its codebase, and I don't think their version numbers
> > track each other.
> >
> > It woul
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 17:50, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:32:43PM -0800, nate wrote:
[snip]
> Be careful of applying the words "older" and "newer" to procps. There
> are two forks of its codebase, and I don't think their version numbers
> track each other.
>
> It wouldn't be th
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:32:43PM -0800, nate wrote:
> there was a SMP patch for procps a couple years ago, which also added
> SMP support to top. I remember the 'ps' from it would show which processor
> a process was on. So look into that. perhaps a recompile of procps will
> give SMP support. I
deFreese, Barry said:
> Hello,
>
> OK, I know that there is no processor affinity under Linux but is there a
> way to tell which processes are running on which processor on an SMP
> kernel?
>
there was a SMP patch for procps a couple years ago, which also added
SMP support to top. I remember the '
Hello,
OK, I know that there is no processor affinity under Linux but is there a
way to tell which processes are running on which processor on an SMP kernel?
Thank you!
Barry deFreese
NTS Technology Services Manager
Nike Team Sports
(949)-616-4005
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Technology doesn't make you
6 matches
Mail list logo
