THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.
A new Flyspray task has been opened. Details are below.
User who did this - Michael (hede)
Attached to Project - awesome
Summary - awful.widget.graph higher CPU Load with awesome 3.5
Task Type - Bug Report
Category - Widgets
Status - Unconfirmed
Assigned To -
Operating System - Linux
Severity - Low
Priority - Normal
Reported Version - 3.5.1
Due in Version - Undecided
Due Date - Undecided
Details - I'm still using awesome 3.4 here because of the higher CPU load with
awesome 3.5 in awful.widget.graph and/or vicious, in awesome 3.5 they do need
more cpu cycles than with awesome 3.4.
I do have a cpuwidged declared in rc.lua
this is the same in 3.4 and 3.5:
cpuwidget = awful.widget.graph()
vicious.register(cpuwidget, vicious.widgets.cpu, "$1")
additionally in awesome 3.4 rc.lua:
mywibox[s].widgets = {
[...]
cpuwidget.widget,
[...]
}
additionally in awesome 3.5 rc.lua:
local right_layout = wibox.layout.fixed.horizontal()
[...]
right_layout:add(cpuwidget)
(... 3.5 lua code changed ... you know ...)
Viewing "top" with Awesome 3.4 -> the awesome process needs below 0.5 %CPU load
if in the top list at all.
Viewing "top" with Awesome 3.5 -> the awesome process needs ca. 3 %CPU.
I didn't tested it, but I'm sure powertop will show much more wakeups with 3.5
than with 3.4.
I removed the cpuwidget in 3.5 and it also remains at <1%. I did add a second
graph and the cpu load climbs even higher than 5%.
I've found a simple bash script for collecting CPU Load values. This way there
are many process forks (bash itself, /usr/bin/sleep, etc.) but this bash
scripting solution is consuming even less ressources than awesome(3.5)+vicious.
In my eyes this is a big regression. I've downgraded to Awesome 3.4 for now.
If I do not register any vicious widget with awesome but running graph updates
via awesome-client then 3.4 is fine where 3.5 has higher CPU load / consumes
more CPU cycles.
i.e. in rc.lua:
cpuwidget = awful.widget.graph()
-- vicious.register(cpuwidget, vicious.widgets.cpu, "$1", 2)
cpuwidget:add_value(0.5)
using a shell:
while /bin/true; do echo "cpuwidget:add_value(0.5)" | awesome-client ; sleep 2;
done
results in ~0% CPU load with awesome 3.4 and ~3% CPU load with awesome 3.5.
(1.6 GHz Intel Core here)
So there's still some regression with awesome 3.5.1-1 and it seems vicious is
not the reason. But I do not know.
More information can be found at the following URL:
https://awesome.naquadah.org/bugs/index.php?do=details&task_id=1166
You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray
bugtracking system. If you did not expect this message or don't want to
receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL
shown above.
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to awesome-devel-unsubscr...@naquadah.org.
