[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1110893: sooperlooper: Sooperlooper consumes 1 full CPU, whatever the number of loops



Package: sooperlooper
Version: 1.7.8~dfsg0-3
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: orl@DatZeProducer.lilakap.nohost.me

Dear Maintainer,

When starting sooperlooper with jack set to 256 samples per buffer, 2 buffers @ 48khz, sooperlooper consumes 100% (at least) of a CPU of my P50 laptop. It doesn't depend on the number of loops. 
I use it in a former version for years, and never noticed that, so I suppose it's linked to some recent changes.
slgui doesn't seem to be implied.

Thank you.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 13.0
  APT prefers testing-security
  APT policy: (500, 'testing-security'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 6.12.35+deb13-rt-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages sooperlooper depends on:
ii  libasound2t64                     1.2.14-1
ii  libc6                             2.41-9
ii  libgcc-s1                         14.2.0-19
ii  libjack-jackd2-0 [libjack-0.125]  1.9.22~dfsg-4
ii  liblo7                            0.32-2
ii  libncurses6                       6.5+20250216-2
ii  librubberband2                    3.3.0+dfsg-2+b3
ii  libsamplerate0                    0.2.2-4+b2
ii  libsigc++-2.0-0v5                 2.12.1-3
ii  libsndfile1                       1.2.2-2+b1
ii  libstdc++6                        14.2.0-19
ii  libtinfo6                         6.5+20250216-2
ii  libwxbase3.2-1t64                 3.2.8+dfsg-2
ii  libwxgtk3.2-1t64                  3.2.8+dfsg-2
ii  libxml2                           2.12.7+dfsg+really2.9.14-1

sooperlooper recommends no packages.

sooperlooper suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information


Reply to: