Message321904
| Author | ammar2 |
|---|---|
| Recipients | ammar2, giampaolo.rodola, jkloth, paul.moore, steve.dower, tim.golden, vstinner, zach.ware |
| Date | 2018-07-18.17:26:41 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1531934801.23.0.56676864532.issue34060@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> But then again, if it's solely for our tests, perhaps the best way to approach this is to start a Python thread that periodically runs this command? This sounds like a very good solution to me, it avoids adding the complexity of the C code. We actually have two options here, to keep the results consistent with the unix load, we can use `typeperf "\System\Processor Queue Length"` To get cpu usage, we can use the command Victor posted. I'll make an alternative PR with that today just so we can contrast the two approaches. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-07-18 17:26:41 | ammar2 | set | recipients: + ammar2, paul.moore, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, tim.golden, jkloth, zach.ware, steve.dower |
| 2018-07-18 17:26:41 | ammar2 | set | messageid: <1531934801.23.0.56676864532.issue34060@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-07-18 17:26:41 | ammar2 | link | issue34060 messages |
| 2018-07-18 17:26:41 | ammar2 | create | |