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

Re: CPU time

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 22:00 -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:33:05 -0500
> Douglas Allan Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 09:22:08AM -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
> >  
> > > I accidentally discovered this morning that Xorg is taking up 25
> > > percent of cpu time when at idle. Is this normal or should I file a bug?
> > > 
> > > I'm running Etch.
> > 
> > I suppose it depends on what kind of box you're running.  I haven't got
> > Etch on my 486 yet.  On my Athlon amd64, it sits there at 100% idle.
> > 
> > >From within X, open a single terminal.  run nice top.  Watch the process
> > activity and also the memory.  Perhaps its swapping and the CPU is
> > spending a lot of time waiting.
>   First thing I did. No swapping, no activity but Xorg sits at the top
> averaging 25 percent. Strange thing is it doesn't seem to affect the feel of
> the desktop, but then maybe it'd be a lot faster if that much CPU wasn't being
> sucked up. Anybody else experiencing this ??

Yes, I have. 

Gnome Panel Monitors (you know animations for load average and so on)
have this effect.

Also, gdesklets. Some other "passive looking" things like remote e-mail
monitors, swallowed applications (like XMMS or BMP) tend to defunct
swallow-applet but still play music or what have you.

But even a large xterm with "top" running with changes will cause XORG
to run-up the usage list. It does have to render the changes, No?

Where you want to really, close all your normal programs (not any panel
mounted stuff etc..). Then CTRL-ALT-F1, login then use top. See what
xorg is doing then.

Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: