Is this only my N900 @PR1.1 or others also experience overall device
sluggishness after ~2-3 days of uptime? There is semi-identified problem
with hildon-home hogging CPU time for few seconds on each wakeup from
standby [1], however that's "fixable" by *killall hildon-home* and re-adding
widgets to
Hi,
ext Dawid Lorenz wrote:
Is this only my N900 @PR1.1 or others also experience overall device sluggishness after
~2-3 days of uptime? There is semi-identified problem with hildon-home hogging CPU time
for few seconds on each wakeup from standby [1], however that's "fixable" by
killall hild
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> Is this only my N900 @PR1.1 or others also experience overall device
> sluggishness after ~2-3 days of uptime? There is semi-identified problem
> with hildon-home hogging CPU time for few seconds on each wakeup from
> standby [1], however that
- Original message -
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> > Is this only my N900 @PR1.1 or others also experience overall device
> > sluggishness after ~2-3 days of uptime? There is semi-identified problem
> > with hildon-home hogging CPU time for few seconds on each w
On 22 February 2010 17:50, Paul Hartman
> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> > Is this only my N900 @PR1.1 or others also experience overall device
> > sluggishness after ~2-3 days of uptime? There is semi-identified problem
> > with hildon-home hogging CPU time for
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:57:34PM +, Bernard Tyers wrote:
> - Original message -
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> > > Is this only my N900 @PR1.1 or others also experience overall device
> > > sluggishness after ~2-3 days of uptime?
Not specifically 2/3-days
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Bernard Tyers
wrote:
>
> - Original message -
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
>> > Is this only my N900 @PR1.1 or others also experience overall device
>> > sluggishness after ~2-3 days of uptime? There is semi-identified problem
- Original message -
> When this happens, do you see "SGX" mentioned in "dmesg" output?
Don't know, but I'll try hard to not forget to check that next time round.
> If it's as low as on desktop, you can get hitches while using the
> device. Something below 100 may be better though.
Is
- Original message -
> This doesn't make me too confident in upgrading to 1.1.1.
>
> Are there *any* real benefits in upgrading? I can't find any big reasons-there
> is a mention somewhere about battery usage improvements.
Tbh, I found initial firmware release a bit worse when it comes to
On 22 February 2010 18:06, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> (Note that after a fresh boot with hundreds of megs of swap used the UI
> is still snappy; it's after a large app pushes essential bits of the OS
> into swap that leaves the UI a bit struggling, even after you close that
> large app -- the OS bi
On Monday 22 February 2010, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> What I am suspecting here is swap (over)usage. It does only seem to
> grow over time, rather than going down when I close unused apps, for
> example. Physical RAM, on the other hand, usually sticks around
> 180-200MB of use, regardless of apps o
On 22 February 2010 21:27, Jan Knutar wrote:
>
> > What I am suspecting here is swap (over)usage. It does only seem to
> > grow over time, rather than going down when I close unused apps, for
> > example. Physical RAM, on the other hand, usually sticks around
> > 180-200MB of use, regardless o
Hi,
ext Dawid Lorenz (maemobile) wrote:
- Original message -
When this happens, do you see "SGX" mentioned in "dmesg" output?
Don't know, but I'll try hard to not forget to check that next time round.
If it's as low as on desktop, you can get hitches while using the
device. Somethi
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 12:08 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
>
> My battery seems the same as always. If I don't make any phone calls
> it lasts around 13 hours at the most (I'm connected to wifi 90% of the
> time, phone mostly sits idle).
That seems very low. I can easily go for three days between ch
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:26:52PM +, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> On 22 February 2010 18:06, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > (Note that after a fresh boot with hundreds of megs of swap used the UI
> > is still snappy; it's after a large app pushes essential bits of the OS
> > into swap that leaves the UI
On 23 February 2010 09:16, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> There are no leftovers of apps that got closed; AFAIU it's just that
> apps/libraries that didn't get closed were pushed from RAM into swap and
> haven't moved back in again. To force them back into RAM you can try
>
> sudo gainroot
> swapoff -
On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> I just get readings from tools like htop or conky.
If htop just uses the MemFree field from /proc/meminfo, then it's pretty
much supposed to hover at over 90% used all the time. Unused RAM is
wasted RAM. What matters is if the system is able to
On 23 February 2010 14:33, Jan Knutar wrote:
> If htop just uses the MemFree field from /proc/meminfo, then it's pretty
> much supposed to hover at over 90% used all the time. Unused RAM is
> wasted RAM. What matters is if the system is able to free up RAM when
> it's needed without excessive I/O
2010/2/23 Michel Dänzer :
> On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 12:08 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>> My battery seems the same as always. If I don't make any phone calls
>> it lasts around 13 hours at the most (I'm connected to wifi 90% of the
>> time, phone mostly sits idle).
>
> That seems very low. I can ea
This is a follow-up from bugzilla entry
https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8723#c35 -- as I think it goes beyond
a scope that issue itself.
Eero Tamminen wrote:
> Anything large (say e.g. Python) waking up on the background will also be an
> issue. You can check top (or strace) now and then
On 23 February 2010 17:28, Paul Hartman
> wrote:
> I haven't noticed anything, and my load average at the moment is 0.00,
> 0.02, 0.00 which is good, but if I sort by time the top offenders
> since my last reboot (uptime 1 day, 3:14) are:
>
> 5:41 pulseaudio
> 5:01 bme_RX-51
> 3:59 Xorg
> 3:42 as
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
>
> On 23 February 2010 17:28, Paul Hartman
> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't noticed anything, and my load average at the moment is 0.00,
>> 0.02, 0.00 which is good, but if I sort by time the top offenders
>> since my last reboot (uptime 1 day, 3:14)
On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Paul Hartman wrote:
> Is Nokia Energy Profiler available for N900? It is an excellent tool
> on Symbian. Powertop just doesn't convey all of the same information
> (mW usage or whatever).
Nokia Energy Profile has been spotted in screenshots from pre-production
firmwar
Jan Knutar kirjoitti ti 23. helmikuuta 2010 23:58:39:
> On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Paul Hartman wrote:
>
> > Is Nokia Energy Profiler available for N900? It is an excellent tool
> > on Symbian. Powertop just doesn't convey all of the same information
> > (mW usage or whatever).
>
> Nokia Energy
Hi,
ext Dawid Lorenz wrote:
I've had a look at top over ssh connection and seen
/usr/bin/pulseaudio --system --high-priority constantly
floating around 1-3% of CPU time. Needless to say, device
was lying on the desk next to me, doing nothing, not to
mention anything media-related. I did killall
On 24 February 2010 10:25, Eero Tamminen wrote:
>
> Does "killall tonegend" help?
>
> Then it's probably this:
>https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6868
>
>
Yep, killall tonegend fixed it. I'll have a look at bugzilla entry later on
and try to re-create the issue.
>
> Then later in
On 23 February 2010 19:38, Paul Hartman
> wrote:
> Ultimately the data comes from the /proc/[pid]/stat, and typically I
> would use "top" or "ps aux", but N900 (busybox) version of those tools
> doesn't include the CPU time. So on N900 I'm using htop which includes
> the TIME+ column. Press T (sh
2010/2/23 Michel Dänzer :
> On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 12:08 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>> My battery seems the same as always. If I don't make any phone calls
>> it lasts around 13 hours at the most (I'm connected to wifi 90% of the
>> time, phone mostly sits idle).
>
> That seems very low. I can ea
On Wednesday 24 February 2010, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> ext Jan Knutar wrote:
> > I guess not even closed NEP was possible as we've heard nothing
> > of it since ;-)
>
> It's a possibility still. Let's see.
That'd be awesome :)
> In the meanwhile, there seems to be a 3rd party app that provide
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 11:28 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
> 2010/2/23 Michel Dänzer :
> >
> > When the device is (supposedly) idle, make sure that e.g. htop
> > doesn't show any significant CPU usage by any process other than itself
> > (and Xorg and osso-xterm, if you're running it on the device dis
Just to comment on this even if it's a little OT.
I have been using the device in GSM mode only and being always on-line
with Skype & Gtalk.
As expected, the battery lasts a lot longer and I didn't notice any
difference (of course) on using IM.
Cool.
Thanks
Aniello
2010/2/24 Aniello Del Sorbo :
2010/2/25 Aniello Del Sorbo
> I have been using the device in GSM mode only and being always on-line
> with Skype & Gtalk.
>
> As expected, the battery lasts a lot longer and I didn't notice any
> difference (of course) on using IM.
>
What do you mean exactly by "a lot longer"?
--
Dawid 'evad'
When I wake up, I usually disconnect it from charger at 9ish am (it's
on WiFi and connected).
May be it stays idle for a bunch of minutes before leaving the house.
Switches to 3G and I go to work (40-45 minutes) and I chat and browse.
Lately without location sharing.
Arrived at work with a bar less
Meant 12pm :p
On 25 February 2010 11:53, Aniello Del Sorbo wrote:
> When I wake up, I usually disconnect it from charger at 9ish am (it's
> on WiFi and connected).
> May be it stays idle for a bunch of minutes before leaving the house.
> Switches to 3G and I go to work (40-45 minutes) and I chat
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 17:10 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 11:28 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
> > 2010/2/23 Michel Dänzer :
> > >
> > > When the device is (supposedly) idle, make sure that e.g. htop
> > > doesn't show any significant CPU usage by any process other than itself
>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does "killall tonegend" help?
>
> Then it's probably this:
>https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6868
Although I didn't see any active CPU activity at the time for
pulseaudio, it is responsible for most of my CPU activity.
Hi,
ext Michel Dänzer wrote:
So if you ever see pulseaudio using non-0 CPU when there's no sound
playing
That will be hard to check without using SSH, unless one
disables the touchscreen sounds... :-)
- Eero
___
maemo-users mailing list
mae
Hi,
ext Dawid Lorenz wrote:
To list pulseaudio clients, use "pactl list".
Strangely:
r...@n900:~# pactl list
-sh: pactl: not found
It comes from pulseaudio-utils package.
- Eero
___
maemo-users mailing list
maemo-users@maemo.org
https://l
On 22 February 2010 16:43, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
>
> Other thing I've noticed is system swappiness value, which is 100 by
> default. What I've learned [2] is that 100 value favours moving stuff to
> swap space quite frequently, which makes some sort of sense with
> experience I've got. I have reboo
On 20 April 2010 16:52, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> I'd like to follow-up on this a little. Basically, after nearly two months
> since launching this thread and moving my N900 into much lower swappiness
> value (I currently have 30), frankly I can't see much difference. What
> usually happens is that a
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:10 +0200, ext Dawid Lorenz wrote:
>
>
> On 20 April 2010 16:52, Dawid Lorenz wrote:
> I'd like to follow-up on this a little. Basically, after
> nearly two months since launching this thread and moving my
> N900 into much lower swappiness value (I
41 matches
Mail list logo
