still can't make any sense of it. the way to get a stack trace is to wait until it's starting to be slow and then press ctrl-c inside gdb, then create the stack trace. do you have debugging symbols for convert?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Nothing crazy on dmesg or /var/log/messages > > I was able to get a full trace (with convert) it's easier to reproduce > than darktable as it's only one commande line & more minimal output ... > > > strace -fC convert test.jpg -rotate 90 test2.jpg > /tmp/log2 2>&1 > > But i was'nt able to do the same with gdb as nothing is crashing & don't > have a lot of knowlgde on it ... > > $ gdb > GNU gdb (Gentoo 7.5.1 p2) 7.5.1 > Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later > <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show > copying" > and "show warranty" for details. > This GDB was configured as "x86_64-pc-linux-gnu". > For bug reporting instructions, please see: > <http://bugs.gentoo.org/>. > (gdb) exec-file /usr/bin/convert > (gdb) set logging on > Copying output to gdb.txt. > (gdb) run test.jpg -rotate 90 test2.jpg > Starting program: /usr/bin/convert test.jpg -rotate 90 test2.jpg > warning: Could not load shared library symbols for linux-vdso.so.1. > Do you need "set solib-search-path" or "set sysroot"? > [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1". > [New Thread 0x7fffe711d700 (LWP 10559)] > [New Thread 0x7fffe691c700 (LWP 10560)] > [New Thread 0x7fffe611b700 (LWP 10561)] > [New Thread 0x7fffe591a700 (LWP 10562)] > [New Thread 0x7fffe5119700 (LWP 10563)] > [New Thread 0x7fffe4918700 (LWP 10564)] > [New Thread 0x7fffe4117700 (LWP 10565)] > [Thread 0x7fffe4117700 (LWP 10565) exited] > [Thread 0x7fffe4918700 (LWP 10564) exited] > [Thread 0x7fffe591a700 (LWP 10562) exited] > [Thread 0x7fffe611b700 (LWP 10561) exited] > [Thread 0x7fffe691c700 (LWP 10560) exited] > [Thread 0x7fffe711d700 (LWP 10559) exited] > [Thread 0x7ffff7fbd780 (LWP 10555) exited] > [Inferior 1 (process 10555) exited normally] > (gdb) bt > No stack. > (gdb) quit > > > > Le jeudi 28 f�vrier 2013 à 11:56 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> can you upload the full trace somewhere? the only thing it's doing >> around your snippets are memory allocations. if that fails/hangs i >> would still try to replace your ram.. >> >> does dmesg report anything crazy? >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > I have got some news : >> > >> > it's not related to nfs share (don't have) or a hardware memory problem >> > (tested with 2 different soft) >> > >> > It's impact darktable but don't cause by him : >> > I also have similar thing with a command who manage picture : >> > >> > The command "convert" of imagemagick hang with the same way >> > ( for exemple convert test.jpg -rotate 90 test2.jpg > it's take more >> > than 1 minute...) >> > >> > A strace of him get on this loop : >> > >> > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 >> > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 >> > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 >> > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 >> > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE, 2, NULL) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource >> > temporarily unavailable) >> > >> > same thing, again & again ... >> > >> > After a long time, it's not more hang : >> > >> > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 >> > munmap(0x7fd448f1c000, 528384) = 0 >> > brk(0xb63000) = 0xb63000 >> > futex(0xaeff64, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 2147483647) = 7 >> > brk(0xb5d000) = 0xb5d000 >> > brk(0xb57000) = 0xb57000 >> > brk(0xb3f000) = 0xb3f000 >> > munmap(0x7fd4536ba000, 113840128) = 0 >> > stat("test2.jpg", 0xafeae0) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or >> > directory) >> > open("test2.jpg", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0666) = 3 >> > fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 >> > mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) >> > = 0x7fd45a34a000 >> > fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 >> > mmap(NULL, 28487680, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, >> > -1, 0) = 0x7fd45881f000 >> > mmap(NULL, 28487680, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, >> > -1, 0) = 0x7fd456cf4000 >> > mmap(NULL, 28487680, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, >> > -1, 0) = 0x7fd4551c9000 >> > >> > Maybe a package is broken on my PC, do you have a idea which one ? >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > >> > >> > Le mercredi 27 f�vrier 2013 à 10:41 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> >> [dev_pixelpipe] took 101.679 secs (0.104 CPU) processing `ombres et >> >> hautes lumières' [preview] >> >> >> >> ^ that sounds like something is seriously broken. maybe your ram is >> >> failing? or the cpu is overheating? the first number should be ~ the >> >> number in parentheses divided by the number of threads. do you have an >> >> unreliable nfs mount that freezes your kernel in the background? >> >> >> >> j. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > No i have a I7 2600K (4core/8 thread) & 8Go of Ram. >> >> > & darktable never use all my ram. >> >> > >> >> > It's not problem with xmp file, as i have tested with a fresh database & >> >> > import a test directory without xmp file >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > It's can be a problem of mixing use of stable & git version ? >> >> > i don't think i have try with a fresh database & start darktable after a >> >> > clean : >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >> >> > COMMAND >> >> > 1368 roumano 20 0 2479m 761m 32m S 788 9.6 15:19.61 >> >> > darktable >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 519 rm -rf ./.cache/darktable ./.config/darktable >> >> > 520 cd bin/darktable/ >> >> > 521 git pull >> >> > 522 ./build.sh >> >> > 523 cd "./build"; sudo make install >> >> > then : >> >> > LANC=C >> >> > rm -rf /tmp/dt >> >> > /opt/darktable/bin/darktable -d perf --configdir /tmp/dt >> >> >> /tmp/darktable_perf4 >> >> > [defaults] found a 64-bit system with 8145292 kb ram and 8 cores (0 atom >> >> > based) >> >> > [defaults] setting high quality defaults >> >> > [mipmap_cache] cache is empty, file >> >> > `/home/roumano/.cache/darktable/mipmaps-607893dafb23007a99f43d77116ba49377a19761' >> >> > doesn't exist >> >> > ... >> >> > ... >> >> > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 0.006 secs (0.026 >> >> > CPU) >> >> > [dev] took 0.000 secs (-0.000 CPU) to load the image. >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.000 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> > [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.018 CPU) processing `balance des >> >> > blancs' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.006 CPU) processing `récupération des >> >> > hautes lumières' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.018 CPU) processing `courbe de >> >> > base' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.008 secs (0.037 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur d'entrée' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.043 secs (0.226 CPU) processing `ombres et hautes >> >> > lumières' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.000 CPU) initing base buffer [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 3.207 secs (0.185 CPU) processing `contraste >> >> > local' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 34.224 secs (0.046 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> >> > netteté' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 37.433 secs (0.237 CPU) processing `balance des >> >> > blancs' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.013 secs (0.087 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur de sortie ' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.008 secs (0.056 CPU) processing `récupération des >> >> > hautes lumières' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.018 CPU) processing >> >> > `velvia' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.002 CPU) processing `sous- et >> >> > sur-exposition' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.009 CPU) processing `gamma' [preview] >> >> > [dev_process_preview] pixel pipeline processing took 37.563 secs (0.707 >> >> > CPU) >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.454 secs (2.445 CPU) processing >> >> > `dématriçage' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.014 CPU) processing `courbe de >> >> > base' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.005 secs (0.032 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur d'entrée' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.025 secs (0.150 CPU) processing `ombres et hautes >> >> > lumières' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.022 secs (0.172 CPU) processing `contraste >> >> > local' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.006 secs (0.033 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> >> > netteté' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.005 secs (0.033 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur de sortie ' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.012 CPU) processing `velvia' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.002 CPU) processing `sous- et >> >> > sur-exposition' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.013 CPU) processing `gamma' [full] >> >> > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 37.971 secs (3.213 >> >> > CPU) >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (-0.000 CPU) initing base buffer [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.041 CPU) processing `balance des >> >> > blancs' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.032 CPU) processing `récupération des >> >> > hautes lumières' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.000 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> > [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.018 CPU) processing `balance des >> >> > blancs' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.010 CPU) processing `récupération des >> >> > hautes lumières' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.019 CPU) processing `courbe de >> >> > base' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.010 secs (0.039 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur d'entrée' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 101.679 secs (0.104 CPU) processing `ombres et >> >> > hautes lumières' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.047 secs (0.033 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> >> > netteté' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.011 secs (0.041 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur de sortie ' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.014 CPU) processing >> >> > `velvia' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.003 CPU) processing `sous- et >> >> > sur-exposition' [preview] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.008 CPU) processing `gamma' [preview] >> >> > [dev_process_preview] pixel pipeline processing took 101.767 secs (0.290 >> >> > CPU) >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 102.246 secs (2.592 CPU) processing >> >> > `dématriçage' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.016 CPU) processing `courbe de >> >> > base' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.031 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur d'entrée' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.025 secs (0.138 CPU) processing `ombres et hautes >> >> > lumières' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.029 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> >> > netteté' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.005 secs (0.040 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur de sortie ' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.016 CPU) processing `velvia' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.001 CPU) processing `sous- et >> >> > sur-exposition' [full] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.001 secs (0.015 CPU) processing `gamma' [full] >> >> > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 102.312 secs (2.951 >> >> > CPU) >> >> > ... >> >> > >> >> > So, with a fresh version it's still very slow (but not for all images, i >> >> > don't see why) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Regards >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Le mercredi 27 f�vrier 2013 à 10:05 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> >> >> what computer is that? shadows/highlights is a bit expensive, but not >> >> >> _that_ expensive. also the randomness of which module is slow is a >> >> >> little worrying. do you have very little ram maybe? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Same things with a fresh database & only 50 pictures: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > :( >> >> >> > >> >> >> > [dev_process_thumbnail] pixel pipeline processing took 0.120 secs >> >> >> > (0.730 >> >> >> > CPU) >> >> >> > [export] creating pixelpipe took 0.148 secs (0.154 CPU) >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.042 secs (0.037 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.008 secs (0.015 CPU) processing `balance des >> >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.016 CPU) processing `récupération >> >> >> > des >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.011 secs (0.055 CPU) processing >> >> >> > `dématriçage' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.006 secs (0.021 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> >> > couleur d'entrée' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.026 secs (0.130 CPU) processing `recadrer et >> >> >> > pivoter' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 17.741 secs (0.000 CPU) processing `ombres et >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.023 secs (0.114 CPU) processing `contraste >> >> >> > local' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.021 CPU) processing >> >> >> > `niveaux' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.009 secs (0.044 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> >> > couleur de sortie ' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.009 CPU) processing >> >> >> > `velvia' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.001 secs (0.002 CPU) processing `sous- et >> >> >> > sur-exposition' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.001 secs (0.005 CPU) processing >> >> >> > `gamma' [thumbnail] >> >> >> > [dev_process_thumbnail] pixel pipeline processing took 17.878 secs >> >> >> > (0.469 CPU) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Le mercredi 27 f�vrier 2013 à 09:42 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> >> >> >> the only thing that looks weird to me are the sql queries in >> >> >> >> between? >> >> >> >> maybe those take a long time just to determine the file name? can >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> try it again with 'darktable --configdir /tmp/dt' to see how a fresh >> >> >> >> database reacts? how many pictures do you have in that? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi Johannes, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > My problem come back again. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > So i have try : >> >> >> >> > remove all /usr/lib/darktable (also remove complete the package >> >> >> >> > from my >> >> >> >> > OS), recompile & install the last git version... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I don't use the opencl as i have a old graphical card & darktable >> >> >> >> > disable it automaticaly. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I have try with this option (on .config/darktable/darktablerc ) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > plugins/lighttable/low_quality_thumbnails=true >> >> >> >> > never_use_embedded_thumb=false >> >> >> >> >> Same issue >> >> >> >> > My darkroom is not faster, at this moment, i only see freeze on >> >> >> >> > darkroom >> >> >> >> > mode when i make some modification . >> >> >> >> > My file are local (& on a ssd...) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Interesting thing on these files ? : (sorry i forgot a LANG=C >> >> >> >> > before ...) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > /opt/darktable/bin/darktable -d perf > /tmp/darktable_perf >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 14.512 secs (0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération >> >> >> >> > des hautes lumières' [full] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > /opt/darktable/bin/darktable -d all > /tmp/darktable_perf2 >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 30.358 secs (0.000 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des >> >> >> >> > blancs' [full] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 24.694 secs (0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération >> >> >> >> > des hautes lumières' [full] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 10.768 secs (0.036 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `renforcer la >> >> >> >> > netteté' [preview] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > & the max of memory use : (take form cmd line) >> >> >> >> > [memory] before pixelpipe process >> >> >> >> > [memory] max address space (vmpeak): 2202060 kB >> >> >> >> > [memory] cur address space (vmsize): 1943652 kB >> >> >> >> > [memory] max used memory (vmhwm ): 895056 kB >> >> >> >> > [memory] cur used memory (vmrss ): 664756 kB >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Regards >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Le lundi 11 f�vrier 2013 à 09:29 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> never saw anything like your output there. looks very broken. do >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> have old dsos in /usr/lib/darktable/ maybe? are you using opencl >> >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> another pipeline in parallel? do you have the full log maybe? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> these are all thumbnail processes.. you could experiment with >> >> >> >> >> the options >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> plugins/lighttable/low_quality_thumbnails=true >> >> >> >> >> never_use_embedded_thumb=false >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (try one at a time) in your darktablerc and see if that makes >> >> >> >> >> any difference. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is darkroom mode faster? are your files on a remote host? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -jo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Roumano <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Actualy my darktable ( git version of 09/02/2013 & stable >> >> >> >> >> > version 1.1.2 ) is >> >> >> >> >> > very slow (for some operation) & my PC is like frozen >> >> >> >> >> > i have tested to launch it with a fresh database : it's the >> >> >> >> >> > same. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > I'm using it on a gentoo machine with 8core, 8Go ram & SSD for >> >> >> >> >> > the OS & raw >> >> >> >> >> > image data ... >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > If i launch it with "-d perf" : >> >> >> >> >> > i saw many time the "white balance" and shadow & lighlights >> >> >> >> >> > (but more >> >> >> >> >> > rarely) take lot of time but nearly all the time, O CPU, >> >> >> >> >> > strange isn't it ? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > [defaults] found a 64-bit system with 8145292 kb ram and 8 >> >> >> >> >> > cores (0 atom >> >> >> >> >> > based) >> >> >> >> >> > [defaults] setting high quality defaults >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 8.614 secs (0.350 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `shadows and >> >> >> >> >> > highlights' [preview] >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.009 secs (0.029 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `balance des blancs' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 10.727 secs (0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.148 secs (0.077 CPU) initing base >> >> >> >> >> > buffer [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 6.682 secs (-0.000 CPU) processing `white >> >> >> >> >> > balance' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (-0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `highlight >> >> >> >> >> > reconstruction' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [export] creating pixelpipe took 0.151 secs (0.173 CPU) >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.072 secs (0.037 CPU) initing base >> >> >> >> >> > buffer [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 14.433 secs (0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `balance des blancs' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 1.691 secs (0.255 CPU) initing base >> >> >> >> >> > buffer [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 5.598 secs (0.010 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `balance des blancs' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.025 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > .... >> >> >> >> >> > dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (-0.000 CPU) initing base >> >> >> >> >> > buffer [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 50.678 secs (26.228 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.001 CPU) processing `gamma' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_process_thumbnail] pixel pipeline processing took 50.703 >> >> >> >> >> > secs (26.311 >> >> >> >> >> > CPU) >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 49.118 secs (24.735 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `balance des >> >> >> >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 17.581 secs (16.482 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.006 secs (0.035 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `dématriçage' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.038 secs (0.055 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [full] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 20.670 secs (15.234 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `balance des >> >> >> >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 21.441 secs (15.708 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `balance des >> >> >> >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 2.050 secs (1.508 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> >> But not all the time : >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.017 secs (0.026 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `balance des blancs' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 1.520 secs (0.042 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.034 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `dématriçage' >> >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.015 secs (0.005 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> >> > `réduction du bruit >> >> >> >> >> > (profil)' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Do you known why ? or it's impact only me ? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> > Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer >> >> >> >> >> > Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 >> >> >> >> >> > and get the hardware for free! Learn more. >> >> >> >> >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> > darktable-devel mailing list >> >> >> >> >> > [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
