CPU use when updating, scanning, etc

(This doesn’t exactly go in the GUI wishlist, but…)
I was wondering, in light of the recent happening, if it would be a good idea to only let cmdagent.exe use one core on multicore systems. One of the advantages of multicore CPUs is of course a more fluid desktop experience, and considering cmdagent never uses 100% of one CPU during normal usage, it doesn’t seem all that much of a leap to only set an affinity with cpu0. (I do not know if this is currently possible in XP/Vista/7, but it seems fairly likely that this can be set via some sort of switch; the only thing I know is that you cannot set this manually). I realise this will only help those with multicore CPUs, but they do appear to be the future…

cmdagent.exe only utilizes a single core.

Even on a multi-core system, if the core being utilized is being tasked 100%, (50% of your total on a dual core system) your computer is crippled. Now, if the OS was smart enough to say, hey, something is pegging this CPU, I’ll switch all other active processes to another core! All would be good. That isn’t the way it works though.

So multi-core users were also affected by the latest issue even though they had an extra core or so basically doing nothing.

Actually, both my cores were at 100%. That said, I can change the core affinity on most processes (though not comodo’s), so unless 100% use on 1 core has other drawbacks (some sort of design flaw in how the OS approaches the cores, or how the mainboard allocates resources, perhaps?), that doesn’t seem to be an issue (to my admittedly naive ears).

Odd… I only saw a single core pegged at 100% on my system. ??? Task manager showed cmdagent.exe using 50% of resources (maxing that core) the performance tab showed one CPU graph maxed, the other more or less idling.

Yes, you can manually switch core affinity. I was saying the only thing that would help with system operation when a core was maxed was if the OS intelligently switched affinity on the other processes all by itself. That way a single process hogging all of the CPU cycles on one core wouldn’t drag your system to a stop.

Isn’t win7 better at doing that than winXP?

Couldn’t say, I haven’t used it. If it is, that would be nice.