Re: pulseaudio memory usage possible leak

[Paolo Galtieri <pgaltieri@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that the numbers don't prove it one way or the other.  I was just pointing out that showing numbers doesn't help.   

As to the issues with firefox it could be flash, but the previous version of firefox, given the same open tabs and content didn't show such high CPU usage as soon as it starts.   I'm running the 64 bit firefox and it really sucks when it comes to sites which use flash heavily it crashes repeatedly.

Paolo

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Reid Rivenburgh <reidr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Paolo Galtieri <pgaltieri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't think you have an issue.  Here's what mine shows with an uptime of 1
> day
>
> PR  NI  VIRT   RES    SHR  S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> 20   0   1118m 317m  34m  S   40.4   15.8         4:50.01
> firefox
>  9  -11  501m   2940   2080 S     2.6   0.1          41:02.09 pulseaudio
>
> Notice that firefox shows substantially more.

I'm not sure that's a compelling defense there....  They're very
different apps.  I have no idea if 501m is reasonable for pulseaudio.

> BTW, has anyone else noted that the latest firefox (3.5.8) is a CPU hog?

In my experience, that's often caused by flash running on a page or
some extension behaving poorly.  Is that possible in your case?

reid
--

users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

-- 
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines