GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 705732
Memory leak consumes 1GB about every 10 minutes
Last modified: 2014-03-12 10:23:16 UTC
Memory leak consumes 1GB about every 10 minutes This is a huge memory leak. I have to restart gnome-shell about once an hour to an hour and a half (I have 8GB of memory). This started when I updated to 3.8.4-1.2-x86_64 a couple of days ago. openSUSE 12.3 x86_64.
I just deleted several extensions (all of which broke when I updated gnome-shell), and I'll see if that fixes it.
Ok, deleting shell extensions did not make a difference.
So you are now running without extensions? Can you please run gnome-shell under valgrind to see if the issue still happens, and give us a gzip'd valgrind log we can use for debugging?
...see section "Debugging GNOME Shell with valgrind" on https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Debugging
Created attachment 254888 [details] gnome memory usage
I'm having this issue as well. I've posted a screenshot. I'm running on Intel Graphics 2000, and my system seems a lot less responsive since the last graphics update. I will try running GNOME with valgrind if the problem persists.
Ok, the problem is persisting, so I tried to follow the instructions on the GNOME Debugging Page. When I run run from gdb, it says that there was a window manager error and that it was unable to open the X display. What am I doing wrong? Thanks!
This should only happen if you use a console instead of a terminal window within GNOME. Type "w" to find your display (normally it's :0.0) and export your display via: export DISPLAY=:0.0
This is not happening in gnome-shell 3.8.4-7.1. I had the problem in gnome-shell 3.8.4-2.2 (I think). I just updated to openSUSE tumbleweed and the problem went away.
Sorry, it looks like the memory leak was an extension issue, not a GNOME one. Should I submit my valgrind log to the author of the extension, or is there a different process for extensions? Thank you!
3.8.4 has a bad memory leak in. most distros have patched it revert the offending commit. See bug 704646 for more details.
From comment 9 and comment 10 it appears as if the problem was either solved by reverting the offending that Ray refers to, or it was an extension issue to begin with. Please feel free to re-open if you have reasons to believe otherwise.