Re: Poor Xorg performance in Etch
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:01:03PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 10:42:22AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> >>Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >>>On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 09:04:13AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> >>> >
> >>>>>New observations after further testing: First, I think I was mistaken,
> >>>>and >this problem does not occur in my other Etch system. Secondly,
> >>top >>shows >only one CPU pegged at 100%, while the overall CPU
> >>utilization is >>50%, >suggesting that the other CPU is idle. Taken
> >>together these seem >>to >suggest a possible SMP or motherboard issue
> >>(MSI K9MM-V).
> >>>>
> >>>>I posted too soon. Apparently the image setting had not taken hold, and
> >>>>when I did disable it the problem went away, both in Iceape and
> >>>>Konqueror. This seems odd because the page is mostly text, with only a
> >>>>few small images. Now I am guessing there is some kind of image
> >>library >>issue.
> Thanks. I also found the threads option (H) in the man page. Below is a
> more complete top listing, with (1) and Irix mode off, and threads on. It
> shows only about one third of the total number of tasks.
>
> Tasks: 173 total, 4 running, 169 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu0 : 1.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
> 0.0%st
> Cpu1 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
> 0.0%st
> Mem: 2073092k total, 2020192k used, 52900k free, 3976k buffers
> Swap: 6434024k total, 56k used, 6433968k free, 1536972k cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 3353 root 14 -10 103m 33m 6608 R 49.9 1.6 15:35.94 Xorg
> 32185 marty 16 0 307m 249m 22m S 0.3 12.3 1:16.70 iceape-bin
> 32483 marty 16 0 2228 1172 856 S 0.2 0.1 0:04.79 top
Two things: it appears that Xorg isn't multi-threaded, and that there
is a problem. I don't know how to fix it.
Does the problem happen with Konqureror or iceweasel as well or only
with iceape? Do you need the all-in-one-mega-app approach of iceape or
would Konq or iceweasel work for you?
Doug.
Reply to: