On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 15:48 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 01:39:35AM +0000, Anders Karlsson wrote: > > > > I had not read that particular entry, but have read it now. I already > > knew how the X server worked though, about caching pixmaps etc. > > Okay -- sorry for the redundancy. No need to apologise. :-) You are right to point out that there is information that should be read, and taken into account. > > > 2) Do you think you are experiencing the same problem as seen in bug > > > #279940? > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/279940 > > > > I am experimenting with that now, although my results will not be > > relevant to this case anymore, as I have migrated the problematic > > machine onto Ubuntu. If the "leak" I experience is in the flash plugin, > > I should still see the problem, even if I have ditched XFree86 in favour > > of X.org. Okay, I'll add some information on this. I am now running Ubuntu Hoary (Sid equivalent) with X.org 6.8.1. Using KDE 3.3, no problem, memory usage of X in total rarely went over 80 MiB. Then I switched back to Gnome........ In three hours, X has grown to have a 135 MiB rss section. xrestop says there is 31.6 MiB total use of X. Might be worth checking with anyone else seeing this problem if they are using Gnome at all. Does the problem go away when using KDE? When I was running OpenBox as window manager, I was still running gnome-panel and gnome-settings-daemon. Those two apps could be culprits of the 'memory leak'. I could be talking out of my ass here, but I am just thinking out loud. > > > 3) Can you please use the "xrestop" program and provide (text) screenshots > > > of its operation, so we can see if there are any culpable clients? > > > > Uhm, as I said above, my results will probably not have any bearing on > > this defect anymore. If it looks like the flash problem, I will post > > snapshots of xrestop. It should be Firefox eating huge amounts of X > > memory but I would have thought that closing the browser should free > > that memory from the X server, or is that a wrong assumption... > > You might try experimenting with the XAA pixmap options as I just suggested > in my mail to Gintautas Miliauskas; see <URL: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284448 > for it. I will give that a shot. I should see in less than 12 hours if that has any effect on memory usage in X really. Regards, -- Anders Karlsson <anders@trudheim.com> Trudheim Technology Limited
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part