|
|
Reminds me of a big company I joined in my third year at university as part of my sandwhich degree.
There was a whole assessment day as part of the application process and one of the tests on that day was an IQ test.
The sheet I was handed had all the answers written on it in pencil, so I put my hand up and explained that the answers were on the sheet when the invigilator approached me.
The invigilator quietly told me to just carry on.
I wonder if I got the place because I was honest rather than the results of the IQ test(I'm not the best with IQ tests).
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: sandwhich degree.
Where do you work now, Subway? 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, because I can't even spell "sandwich"!
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
At least you didn't spell it "sandwitch"... 
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Reddit is hyperlinked, so can read the original story... NOPE
ok, maybe somewhere else links the reference article... NOPE
in the comments of 60+ people ... NOPE
wtf
oh, this reddit post is 4 years old, no wonder they don't want to reference it.
there is recycle, and then there is I don't know how to do reporting.
unless its a bot article, which when the search on their site for author doesn't work. 🤷
interesting read, as well as the original.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProRevenge/comments/e8f0z1/not_my_revenge_but_my_professor_against_cheaters/
|
|
|
|
|
Back when I was a college student, I worked for a professor as one of his research assistants. We were tasked with researching material for him to present to his freshman classes. We smelled that there was a lot of cheating going on, so we came up with a solution: The questions and answers were in a file on the computer. We added an algorithm using a random number generator which scrambled the order of the questions. For each exam, we also printed a sheet with the correct order of questions. You should have heard the howls at the frat houses when the students who cheated, which turned out to be more than half of them, got their exams back.
__________________
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that there are some things I just can’t keep up with, the determination to keep up with the things I must keep up with, and the wisdom to find a good RSS feed from someone who keeps up with what I’d like to, but just don’t have the damn bandwidth to handle right now.
© 2009, Rex Hammock
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings Kind Regards
May I please inquire of your kind selves who of course are much more knowledgeable than myself meaning of Task Manager CPU Utilization reported percentage. I wish to know what it is in fact a measure of. All the answers I have found on-line are along the lines of "The percentage you see (e.g., 25%) represents the proportion of the CPU’s capacity that is actively in use. It indicates how much of the CPU’s processing power is currently allocated to running tasks and processes." Web search of term "capacity" seems to result as identical to speed id est bits or perhaps instructions per second similarly for "processing power".
I am motivated to this inquiry as my intel i7 reported % is usually mid 60s even whilst performing several simultaneous tasks exempli gratia a build and two console programs each running random testing.
Other than not knowing what in fact is being measured I do not understand why the CPU would not run at 100% as I assume doing so would complete assigned tasks sooner rather than later. Perhaps it is a matter of temperature throttling. My temperatures are typically mid 60s.
So to paraphrase inquiry if reported % is exempli gratia 50 does this mean the CPU is sitting idle half the time? If so why?
Thank You Kindly
|
|
|
|
|
In large part, because your computer has multiple cores.
You cannot just break a task down to use all cores.
Add 2 + 2 using two threads to divide the task between two cores. You can't.
So if you add 2+2 your CPU will not spike to 100. If it had two cores, the best you'd get is 50%, 4 cores - 25%, etc.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
At this moment Task Manager is reporting :
Utilization 23%
Speed 3.84 GHz
Base Speed: 3.41 GHz
Cores: 4
Logical processors: 8
Processes 356
Threads 4960
Handles 189319
The graph of each of the eight logical processors shows more or less the 23%.
w/ so much to do why is the CPU deciding to utilize only 23% of itself?
|
|
|
|
|
Because it is performing tasks that cannot be broken across multiple cores.
You have 4 cores. For each task that cannot be broken up, the most it can use is 25%
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You Kindly for your assistance. At this moment Utilization is reported as 54%.
|
|
|
|
|
In simple terms:
There's always a ton of stuff going on with modern OSes, even those who designed them will have a hard time keeping it all in their heads and probably couldn't present a complete and accurate picture of what might be going in at any given time.
With that out of the way:
What problem are you trying to resolve? Does the exact CPU utilization figure bother you?
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind reply. I am not attempting to solve any problem in particular. I merely wish to learn. In particular I am curious why CPU utilization is so low as I am inclined to naively assume it is more beneficial for the user for the CPU to utilize 100% of its resources so as to complete its tasks sooner rather than later. Would that not be the case?
-Cheerios
|
|
|
|
|
You're not entirely wrong...but it's all about spreading the load.
Back in the single-core systems days, it was very common to see Task Manager show a single task/process use up 100% of the CPU. Windows went out of its way to remain responsive, but you knew that when this happened - for more than a few seconds at a time - the system started to get wonky. That's a technical term. 
With 2 CPUs, a single-threaded process using up all the processing power it can get will be shown as using 50% of the processor. You don't get the task split up across both CPUs "for free", it has to be coded to take advantage of multi-threading. That being said, if a process can spawn 2 threads, each hitting the CPU as hard as it can, you might see CPU usage go beyond that 50% and closer to 100% (but it'll hardly ever remain exactly at 100% no matter what).
The same pattern repeats for systems with 4 or 8+ cores. With 4 cores, a single-threaded process hitting the CPU hard will show 25% usage; with 8 cores, 12.5%. If the process starts spawning more threads, then you'll see the CPU usage climb.
I'm oversimplifying, but I generally find most people are happy with this sort of explanation and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you kindly. I do not fall in the happy group. If the machine were to deal w/ no more processes than cores than of course it is easy to be so happy. However such is not the case. There are tens hundreds perhaps even thousands of processes on my 4 Core machine.
-Kind Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Right...but you won't ever get a single core dedicated to a single process, even if you could get 1:1 process:core ratio.
And not all running processes have something to do all the time, so even though you have more processes than cores, and each core gets to do some work that a process needs to have taken care of...you'll hardly ever see all cores busy at 100%.
In theory, if you were to add up the CPU utilization from all processes at a given time, plus the System Idle Process entry shown in Task Manager...you might get close to 100%.
Are you thinking about this in terms of "caching is good, because unused memory is wasted memory"? I'd say it's not so with CPUs...pushing CPUs to their limit, all the time, would draw a lot of power, and generate a lot of heat.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I am thinking in terms of "if 23% is good 99.999% is better." I am aware of thermal limitations but do not know if such is the reason for the 23%. Should I assume the remaining 77% of the time the CPU is twiddling its thumbs? As for my system Task Manager at this moment shows 0% for almost all processes and a quick guess of the sum of the others is as reported id est 30%.
Kind Regards
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: Yes I am thinking in terms of "if 23% is good 99.999% is better."
That's describing a 4-core system where one process running at 100%, and whoever wrote that program didn't bother to try to write it as multi-threaded. It may or may not be possible to do that. Or maybe it was decided it was just not worth it, given the overall time expected for the task to complete, vs the complexity involved in writing a well-behaved multi-threaded application.
|
|
|
|
|
Software is hard. Good software is harder. Good parallel software is harder than that.
If you want high CPU loads that mostly represent useful work, you have to do a lot of work to figure out how to avoid system calls, memory allocation, and even random accesses into gigantic memory maps, as well as efficient communication among the threads. Any inefficiency in any of these factors can slow down processing to the extent that the multiple threads don't proceed much faster than a single thread would.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. That's why I've been saying all along that making some software multi-threaded isn't something you get for free, and many developers will forego the benefits, unless there's significant, measurable gains to be had.
In other words...stop worrying about processes not pinning your CPU at 100%. In fact, that is when you should start worrying about what's going on...
|
|
|
|
|
Many operations on the motherboard do not require direct CPU utilization. Reading/Writing to disk files (HD drives have rotational delays, SSDs have bandwidth limitations depending on read or write, Pulling data from the Internet, moving data to and from your video card.) Many use hardware DMA (Direct Memory Access) to move the data and the CPU has to go idle while the transfers are taking place. Another area that can cause CPU to idle is if you exceed your physical memory and start using virtual memory. The the operating system gets involved in swapping data to and from disk and memory to give you the illusion of more main memory. Some opcode level instructions don't like it when the data they are referencing is beyond a certain physical distance. This can cause stalls in the pre-execution decoding that the CPU does and cause flushes of opcodes that have been decoded and stacked in the execution pipeline. Same goes with generated code that has an abundance of branches. Branch prediction can falter and cause CPU stalls as it has to reload the pipeline with opcodes from the target location.
Depends on what your computer is processing.
Are you experiencing slow response (stuttering pointer movement, keyboard lag)?
That's all I can think of "off the top of my head" I am sure there are more reasons for low CPU utilization.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Add 2 + 2 using two threads to divide the task between two cores. You can't.
What about?
1+1=A
1+1=B
A+B=Answer
(Seems like a joke but I worked with a VP that seemed to think throwing threads at a problem would always solve everything.)
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
There's another weird bit where some chips can't run all cores at full speed. I think the point is to have some low-power efficiency cores to dedicate to certain kinds of tasks.
Not real sure how common that is and it's a newer deal.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
