Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
According to issue 194 the reason why I decided to limit CPU percentage to 100%
on Windows was because taskmgr.exe does the same thing.
Now it appears you're saying the opposite.
Maybe this is true on Windows 8 only? I don't know (I test psutil on Windows 7).
Question: if you manually remove the 100% limit I set in psutil code and
compare psutil values with taskmgr's and procmon.exe do they look similar?
Personally I don't have any particular reason NOT to remove the limit as long
as the return value is correct across different Windows versions as it is on
UNIX.
I'd say one way to investigate this would be to run a program spawning 2
threads, each thread running a "while 1: pass" loop.
On a 10-cores system I would expect to see one process reporting 200% CPU usage.
Side note: such a test cannot be done in cPython because of the GIL so we'd
have to cook that up by using another language or interpreter (IronPython or
Jython).
Original comment by g.rodola
on 14 Feb 2014 at 12:52
Hi,
The task manager indeed shows values normalized (not capped) on a 0-100% base.
However, the value that Psutil gets from the system is not normalized (not
divided by the number of cores in the system), so it makes no sense to cap it.
I built locally a version where I just removed the cap and it seems to work
perfectly fine. I can perform the test you asked for in the coming days to
confirm it behaves as expected on more CPU-intensive workflows, as mine does
not go much higher than 120%, but for political/legal reasons, the company
where I work won't let me contribute directly to the project (I know it
sucks...). Since the fix is only to remove the cap though, I'm sure it won't be
too much of a hassle to do it yourself.
So I'll get back to you with test results to confirm my theories in the coming
days.
Original comment by francois...@gmail.com
on 14 Feb 2014 at 2:32
> the company where I work won't let me contribute directly to the
> project (I know it sucks...)
I'm sorry. That's just stupid.
I wish there would be a license not allowing such companies to use open source
stuff.
Original comment by g.rodola
on 14 Feb 2014 at 4:56
I agree, but I cannot change that. I am currently bending the rules opening
this issue and performing tests to get this fixed instead of just forking it
locally on our server...
As for the results:
1) I coded a tiny c++11 application that busy loops on 4 threads:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::thread* aThreads[4];
bool bStop = false;
for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
aThreads[i] = new std::thread([&bStop]()
{
while(1)
{
// perform useless computation
int x = 3 + 4;
int y = x * 2;
if(bStop)
break;
}
});
}
std::cin >> bStop;
for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
if(aThreads[i])
{
aThreads[i]->join();
delete aThreads[i];
}
}
return 0;
}
--------------
2) I then use a python script to launch the process and grab its cpu_percent
values with the 100 percent cap removed:
#!/usr/bin/python
import sys
import psutil
import subprocess
def go():
# creating process to run application
process = subprocess.Popen(["400percentbusy.exe"])
p = psutil.Process(process.pid)
if p.is_running():
cpu_vals = []
print "Grabbing results for the next 10 seconds..."
for i in range(0,10):
try:
cpu_vals.append(p.get_cpu_percent(1))
print 'cpu: {}'.format(str(cpu_vals[i]))
except:
print "Process ended while still taking measures! Accuracy might be affected."
break
print ''
print 'SUMMARY:'
print 'CPU - MIN: {} MAX: {} AVG: {}'.format(str(min(cpu_vals)), str(max(cpu_vals)), str(sum(cpu_vals)/float(len(cpu_vals))))
else:
print 'invalid PID'
-----------------
3) I get the following output:
>>> test400percent.go()
Grabbing results for the next 1 minute...
cpu: 398.9
cpu: 402.0
cpu: 398.1
cpu: 396.5
cpu: 398.2
cpu: 410.1
cpu: 398.9
cpu: 398.2
cpu: 401.2
cpu: 398.9
SUMMARY:
CPU - MIN: 396.5 MAX: 410.1 AVG: 400.1
---------------
This comfirms that the value grabbed by psutil is the sum of the percentages
from all the cores in the system, not normalized and as such, it should not be
capped to 100.
I hope you can overlook your frustration and perform the fix, as I think I did
the best I could considering the circumstances and I think your project can
benefit from it. If not, well I wish you good luck in your project(s), as you
made a really useful piece of software.
Thanks for your help
Original comment by francois...@gmail.com
on 18 Feb 2014 at 4:44
Fixed in revision fac74cc73582.
Thanks for detailed insights.
Original comment by g.rodola
on 24 Feb 2014 at 1:34
Closing out as fixed as 2.0.0 version is finally out.
Original comment by g.rodola
on 10 Mar 2014 at 11:36
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
francois...@gmail.com
on 10 Feb 2014 at 11:42