Messages in this thread | | | From | Denis Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] iowait statistics | Date | Thu, 16 May 2002 09:42:52 -0200 |
| |
On 15 May 2002 17:00, Rik van Riel wrote: > > $ top > > fscanf failed on /proc/stat for cpu 1 > > Doh, take a look at top.c around line 1460: > > for(i = 0; i < nr_cpu; i++) { > if(fscanf(file, "cpu%*d %d %d %d %d\n", > &u_ticks, &n_ticks, &s_ticks, &i_ticks) != 4) { > fprintf(stderr, "fscanf failed on /proc/stat for cpu > %d\n", i); > > It would have been ok (like vmstat) if it didn't expect the \n > after the fourth number ;/ > > Oh well, time for another procps patch ;)
While you're at it:
printf("CPU states:" " %2ld.%ld%% user, %2ld.%ld%% system," " %2ld.%ld%% nice, %2ld.%ld%% idle", user_ticks / 10UL, user_ticks % 10UL, system_ticks / 10UL, system_ticks % 10UL, nice_ticks / 10UL, nice_ticks % 10UL, idle_ticks / 10UL, idle_ticks % 10UL);
" %2ld" -> "%3ld" will make 100.00% look much nicer: Current code: " 34.56%" " 100.00%" (i.e. 100% is one char wider!) New code: " 34.56%" "100.00%"
Same here:
printf ("CPU%d states: %2d.%-d%% user, %2d.%-d%% system," " %2d.%-d%% nice, %2d.%-d%% idle", cpumap,
Another thing: in sight of moves towards 64bit jiffies isn't it wise to use unsigned long long (or explicit u64) for all these numbers? -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |