Halim Sahin wrote: > Hi, > On Mi, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:25:57 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: >> Can you identify a particular VDR thread that consumes those >> 20% more CPU time? >> > > Thats very dificult. > After observing this a time here is the output of > ps -T u -C vdr > > USER PID SPID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > root 5252 5252 0.0 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Rl+ 17:59 0:00 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5262 0.0 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Sl+ 17:59 0:00 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5263 0.4 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 SNl+ 17:59 0:01 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5265 0.0 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Sl+ 17:59 0:00 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5266 0.3 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 RNl+ 17:59 0:01 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5267 0.0 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Sl+ 17:59 0:00 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5268 0.0 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Sl+ 17:59 0:00 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5283 0.0 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Sl+ 17:59 0:00 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5284 0.0 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Sl+ 17:59 0:00 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > root 5252 5285 0.3 1.0 31536 10628 tty1 Sl+ 17:59 0:01 ./vdr -E /dev/shm/epg.data -w 40 -s /sbin/go_down -l 0 -c /etc/vdr > > I am not shure that you can read someting out of this. > I can only tell you, that the cpuload without the dvb-t stick pluged in > is lower. Maybe the CPU load is simply higher for the USB driver, as suggested by Torgeir Veimo in his posting a few hours ago. Klaus
