GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 737083
crash when viewing photos - out of memory
Last modified: 2014-09-26 00:22:19 UTC
Hi, using Shotwell 0.18 and the 0.20 (via ppa:yorba) on Linux Mint 17. This is on a Lenovo, Intel Core i5, 4 GB RAM Intel Graphics with shared memory. The System is installed without swap partition. The following crash can be reproduced easily by the following steps: 1. open shotwell 2. double-click on a picture to open the viewer-mode 3. browse through the pictures 4. shotwell crashes after approximately 55 pictures Since the consumption of memory increases with each picture, the RAM fills up quickly - this seems to lead the the crash. I used the Gnome-System Monitor to check the RAM consumption. It seems as if shotwell does not clear pictures from RAM. The following error message is provided after the crash when shotwell is started via the terminal: L 2346 2014-09-21 19:44:38 [CRT] orientation_rotate_pixbuf: assertion 'GDK_IS_PIXBUF (pixbuf)' failed (shotwell:2346): GdkPixbuf-CRITICAL **: gdk_pixbuf_scale_simple: assertion 'GDK_IS_PIXBUF (src)' failed L 2346 2014-09-21 19:44:38 [CRT] dimensions_for_pixbuf: assertion 'GDK_IS_PIXBUF (pixbuf)' failed ** ERROR:/build/buildd/shotwell-0.20.0/src/Photo.vala:3436:photo_get_pixbuf_with_options: assertion failed: (scaled_to_viewport.approx_equals(Dimensions.for_pixbuf(pixbuf), SCALING_FUDGE)) Aborted My interpretation is that the crash occurs because of full memory - and the crash report is just reporting a problem that is caused by this. I observed this problem with version 0.18 and upgraded to 0.20 via the ppa:yorba repository. The problem is still the same. Feel free to contact me if you need further information. Keep up the good work.
I can't reproduce this. It is possible to drive up Shotwell's memory usage by going through pictures very fast, but it will drop back after a few seconds of inactivity. Two questions: 1. What kind of pictures are you viewing (JPEG, PNG, RAW)? 2. Are you going through the images quickly or slowly?
Christian, if you could post your answers to my questions on bug #715198, that would be great. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 715198 ***