Re: toshiba video problem
On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 18:00:01 +0200, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 17:20:01 +0200, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 06:50:01 +0200, Felix Miata
>><mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Noah Sombrero composed on 2022-04-05 22:18 (UTC-0400):
>>>
>>>> Everything is ok until I load a program of any size, pan, kmail,
>>>> thunderbird, worker file manager. Worker immediately freezes up
>>>> debian. This was not true at 1024x768.
>>>
>>>Using which DE or WM?
>
>This is X, Cinnamon environment.
>
>>Konsole, Worker & MC are all running fine here @1440x900 on
>>>a 1680x1050 display, though without any RAM shared by the GPU.
>>
>>That would make it hard to compare. But resource monitor shows:
>>
>>cpu1 & cpu 2 both running at about 30%, with the system idle and only
>>resource monitor running. Memory shows 53% of 1.25gb used. Swap not
>>used at all, 8 gb.
>>
>>If I widen the System Monitor display on the processes page an inch or
>>so, debian crashes. Could this be a cpu issue? Why is cpu usage so
>>high?
>>
>>>On all old limited
>>>resource systems like this I automatically ease up the load by disabling
>>>compositing
>
>How can I do that?
>
>>, as well as using a lightweight DE:
>>># free
>>> total used free shared buff/cache available
>>>Mem: 1542280 146580 903320 1296 492380 1206724
>>>Swap: 192744 0 192744
>>># inxi -GSayz
>>>System:
>>> Kernel: 5.10.0-13-686 arch: i686 bits: 32 compiler: gcc v: 10.2.1
>>> parameters: ro root=LABEL=<filter>
>>> Desktop: Trinity info: kicker wm: Twin v: 3.0 vt: 7 dm: TDM
>>> Distro: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)
>>>Graphics:
>>> Device-1: NVIDIA NV34 [GeForce FX 5200] driver: nouveau v: kernel ports:
>>> active: VGA-1 empty: DVI-I-1,TV-1 bus-ID: 01:00.0 chip-ID: 10de:0322
>>> class-ID: 0300
>>> Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.20.11 driver: X: loaded: nouveau
>>> unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,vesa alternate: nv gpu: nouveau display-ID: :0
>>> screens: 1
>>> Screen-1: 0 s-res: 1440x900 s-dpi: 96 s-size: 380x238mm (14.96x9.37")
>>> s-diag: 448mm (17.65")
>>> Monitor-1: VGA-1 model: Lenovo L2251x Wide serial: <filter> built: 2011
>>> res: 1440x900 dpi: 77 gamma: 1.2 size: 474x296mm (18.66x11.65")
>>> diag: 559mm (22") ratio: 16:10 modes: max: 1680x1050 min: 720x400
>>> OpenGL: renderer: NV34 v: 1.5 Mesa 20.3.5 direct render: Yes
>>># xrandr
>>>Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1440 x 900, maximum 4096 x 4096
>>>VGA-1 connected primary 1440x900+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
>>>474mm x 296mm
>>> 1680x1050 59.97 + 74.89
>>> 1280x1024 75.02 60.02
>>> 1440x900 74.98 59.89*
>>> 1152x864 75.00
>>> 1024x768 75.03 70.07 60.00
>>> 800x600 72.19 75.00 60.32
>>> 640x480 75.00 72.81 66.67 59.94
>>> 720x400 70.08
>>>DVI-I-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
>>>TV-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
>>># cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/70-extensions.conf
>>>Section "Extensions"
>>> Option "Composite" "Disable"
>>>EndSection
>>>
>>>The mozilla.org build of Firefox ESR52 and of SeaMonkey 2.49.5 run too:
>>># free
>>> total used free shared buff/cache available
>>>Mem: 1542280 592224 136556 19900 813500 719904
>>>Swap: 192744 2840 189904
>
>So, I ran System monitor and got cpu readings of 30% on both 1 & 2.
>Ram usage was 53%
>
>I started FireFox, cpu readings went to 60-70%, ram usage went to 63%
>ram and .1% swap. That was with no web page loaded. Debian died at
>that point.
>
>Like windows task manager, it seems that a lot is going on that
>doesn't get shown on such tools. The important thing, I think is
>that, if I boot into root, where the video adjustment is not made
>remaining 1024x768, I can load Worker and use it causing no problem.
>In normal user mode, Worker causes immediate debian shutdown.
It is interesting then, that, if I disable the screen resolution
adjustment, and boot as normal user into 1024x768, cpu usage is about
20% higher on cpu's 1 & 2, and ram usage is a little lower. But I can
load all programs like Worker and Kmail and use them with not a
problem.
It must simply be something about not being able to manage 1440x900
resolution.
--
Noah Sombrero
Reply to: