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

Re: Debian 9.2 amd64 Xfce lock screen -> 100 %CPU by lightdm-gt+



On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:13:52PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
On 10/11/17 21:43, davidson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, David Christensen wrote:
[cut]
If I lock the screen and SSH in from another machine, 'top' says:
...
 PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND 7473 lightdm   20   0  587348  51332  25584 R  94.6  2.5   0:14.52 lightdm-gt+
...

AFAICT, that command name is truncated. In interactive top, you can
scroll with right-arrow, to view the rest of the name. With that
information, your search results might improve.

Could be lightdm-gtk-greeter? Or something else, I guess.
...

Thanks for the tip. Making my Xfce Terminal wider, I see more of the name, but it's still truncated (as are several others with long names). RTFM top(1) -- I can use the -b (batch mode), -n 1 (number of iterations), and -w (output-width-override) options and redirect the output to file:

2017-10-11 22:51:04 dpchrist@tinkywinky ~
$ top -b -n 1 -w
top - 22:52:43 up 15:45,  2 users,  load average: 0.98, 0.53, 0.27
Tasks: 232 total,   3 running, 229 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
%Cpu(s): 13.7 us, 2.3 sy, 0.2 ni, 83.4 id, 0.4 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
KiB Mem :  2043196 total,   535484 free,   780640 used,   727072 buff/cache
KiB Swap:  1952764 total,  1744820 free,   207944 used.   980428 avail Mem

 PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND
9957 lightdm 20 0 587348 51196 25444 R 88.2 2.5 2:41.03 lightdm-gtk-gre
...

According to StackOverflow[1], process names can only be 16 bytes long. So, while the executable may be called 'lightdm-gtk-greeter', the process in which that executable runs will be 'lightdm-gtk-gre'.


[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23534263/what-is-the-maximum-allowed-limit-on-the-length-of-a-process-name#23534499


--
For more information, please reread.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: