On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 16:35 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 05:12:13PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 13:10 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > > > > > Running 'LIBGL_ALWAYS_SOFTWARE=1 gnome-shell --replace', as proposed by > > > drago01, indeed starts an intended mode gnome session, both before and > > > after installing these scratch packages, but results are spectacularly > > > useless. 'gnome-shells' eats whatever CPU it can get so one can look at > > > results but no hope of doing anything useful. > > > > CPU usage is going to be higher. That's what "software rendering" > > means. I've not found it onerous on an early c2d, but again, I really > > need to know what kind of CPU is being complained about. > > This particular one is a 64-bit (albeit quite old) processor: > > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD > cpu family : 15 > model : 5 > model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 142 > stepping : 1 > cpu MHz : 1600.062 > cache size : 1024 KB > > on a board with 2GB of a physical memory. I know some machines around, > and doing useful job, where this is a quite powerhouse in a comparison. > When forced with LIBGL_ALWAYS_SOFTWARE=1 gnome shell was taking all the > time between 94% and 96% of CPU and a response latency for a keystroke > or a mouse movement was in a order of few seconds. My guess is that > more of CPU would be grabbed if only it would be available. At the > first moment I thought that the whole thing just locked up and only > after some delay I realized that I was mistaken. > > I have no idea how much this CPU usage would have to be reduced before > this setup would pass a "laugh test" but probably 10% for gnome-shell > would be way too much. Can you test with a release (not debug) kernel? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
