Re: XOrg 6.9.0.dfsg.1-5bpo2 eats up all CPU
On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:17:26 +0200, Frank wrote in message
<[🔎] 86u080d82x.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>:
> Hi,
>
> it has happened frequently that Xorg eats up nearly all CPU, and the
> system gets considerable slower (but is still very well usable):
>
> top - 14:13:06 up 4:38, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.02, 1.06
> Tasks: 99 total, 2 running, 97 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 2.0% us, 98.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi,
> 0.0% si Mem: 1035672k total, 951876k used, 83796k free,
> 120284k buffers Swap: 1005440k total, 144k used, 1005296k
> free, 401916k cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
>
> 5394 root 25 0 169m 35m 4156 R 99.6 3.5 91:01.25 Xorg
>
>
> When I use an other application, Xorg's CPU usage sometimes drops a
> little, but still nothing is idle. I think this happens at least
> since this version maybe earlier. I first attributed it to an xvnc
> session which was mostly running, but now I found it a couple of
> times without any remote desktop application.
>
> The X processes running are Firefox, GNU Emacs, KOrganizer, a couple
> of rxvt's, xconsole and sometimes others (e.g. Mathematica, or a
> home-brewn Windows application using wine), but I cannot see any
> connection to using them.
..I run xorg 7.0.17 and kde 3.5.2-2 at 2056x1536x24bpp@59 on an ati 9250
clone at 1x agp on a 7 yr old amd k6-2 450MHz and usually run konqueror
and konsole with a dozen or so sessions on each, and sees similar loads.
..I have DRI working on my old box and suspect you don't.
> Has anybody else experienced similar behavior? What other
> information would be useful?
..root's output of ' lspci -vvv ;dmesg ;cat /var/log/Xorg.0.log'.
Ah, well, I just attach my xorg.conf in
> case anybody can interpret this.
..it says what you want X.org to do, the logs tells us if it works.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: