After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 133243 - "Run Application" temporarily hangs when user starts typing
"Run Application" temporarily hangs when user starts typing
Product: gnome-panel
Classification: Other
Component: panel
git master
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Panel Maintainers
Panel Maintainers
: 123644 142895 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2004-02-02 18:42 UTC by Ben Davis
Modified: 2015-03-24 13:00 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

idle add ensure_completion patch (1.05 KB, patch)
2004-03-03 20:05 UTC, Ross Girshick
none Details | Review
fill GCompletion object in batches (2.88 KB, patch)
2004-03-03 20:59 UTC, Ross Girshick
none Details | Review
Updated batch patch (3.85 KB, patch)
2004-03-05 00:50 UTC, Ross Girshick
none Details | Review
Patch to limit stat to only what we need (2.64 KB, patch)
2004-05-14 18:39 UTC, Morten Welinder
none Details | Review
patch for CVS head (8.08 KB, patch)
2004-06-14 01:21 UTC, Frank Worsley
none Details | Review

Description Ben Davis 2004-02-02 18:42:42 UTC
Description of Problem:
(using gnome 2.4)
When I click on "Run Application"  from the main
menu, as soon as I hit a letter on the keyboard it
freezes up as if it were searching for something.
 Sometimes it takes as long as 20 seconds to allow
me to finish typing.  After I try it again it goes
much faster. This only happens after a few hours
of not using my computer.

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Wait a few hours
2. Click "Run Application" from the gnome menu
3. Type something

Actual Results:
Application hangs while searching harddisk for
something, can't type anything until it finishes.

Expected Results:
It should allow me to type something the instant
it comes up

How often does this happen? 
Only when the computer hasn't been used for a few

Additional Information:
It seems to me as if it is searching the harddisk
for matches to what I am typing so that it can do
the auto-competion thing, but for some reason it
takes much longer than it should.
Comment 1 Michal Kašpar 2004-02-03 19:27:41 UTC
For me this happens too. It is most visible if I open the "Run
Application" with keyboard shortcut (Alt F2 in my case) and try to
type anything in, dialog (and panel) freezes up to minute.
When I work with mouse only (choose from popup with command history
etc.), everything is fine.
When I strace gnome-panel, I see, that as soon as I try to type in, it
opens all directories in my PATH and tries to access (ie.
access("/usr/bin/prune", X_OK)          = 0)
all the executables there (which is about 3100 in my /usr/bin).
I use debian testing, curently with 2.6.x kernel, but 2.4.x is the same.
Comment 2 Arcterex 2004-02-04 16:40:14 UTC
I can confirm the same for gnome 2.4 in gentoo stable on x86.
Comment 3 Ross Girshick 2004-03-03 18:03:53 UTC
The problem here, as noted, is that in order to fill g_complete every
file in the user's path is access'd and stat'd. This happens once
everytime the run dialog is created. On some systems this takes a long
time to complete (10-20 seconds on my old PIII 650 latop with gentoo).
However, once the kernel has cached the inodes it is much faster to
run in the future. Here are some possibilities that I'm thinking of:

- When the panel is loaded stat all of the files in the user's path.
This can be added with low priority to the idle loop and will likely
be completed before the user uses the run dialog.
* This has the disadvantage of slowing the startup of gnome.

- Instead of regenderating the g_complete object each time, we could
save it with all of its entries for the next time the run dialog is
* This has the disadvantage of added complexity for checking if files
have been linked or unlinked in the user's path. We could save the
mtime of each path dir and regenerate on demand if the mtime has changed.

- Be less precise about which files were autocomplete. Instead of
calling access and stat on each file, we could just throw everything
from readdir into g_complete.
* This has the disadvantage of autocompleting some files that might be
directories or non-executable. But this would be rar due to the nature
of the dirs in PATH.

None of these solutions seem ideal, but this really is a problem on
some systems.
Comment 4 Vincent Untz 2004-03-03 18:42:43 UTC
Ross: the GCompletion object is filled only the first time the run
dialog is opened, AFAIK.

So the idea is, the first time the user uses the dialog, you fill the
GCompletion object with a function added to the idle loop.  So the
GCompletion object is filled only if necessary, and it doesn't block
the UI.

What do you think of that?
Comment 5 Ross Girshick 2004-03-03 20:04:13 UTC
Vincent: I've just verified that the GCompletion object is filled
everytime the dialog is opened.

I tested out putting panel_run_dialog_ensure_completion() into the
idle loop. Unfortunately I don't think this will give the desired
effect. What happens is: 

(1) user starts typing
(2) panel_run_dialog_ensure_completion is placed in the idle loop
(3) User maybe types another char or two before the idle loop calls
(4) ensure_completion runs until it's finished blocking user input

You can simulated this by putting sleep(1) into the fill executables
function if your machine is too fast to notice otherwise (as mine is).

I might be missing something here, so I'll attach the idle add patch
for you to double check.

Here's another idea (that avoids using threads):

Initially just use readdir to place all of the interesting files into
a list. This saves us the two calls to access and stat and I *think*
will be very fast.

Then, using a function in the idle loop, batch process the interesting
file list checking with access and stat to see if we want to use them
for GCompletion. Batches can be handled say 100+ or so at a time until
done. After a batch is done it can be added to the GCompletion object,
allowing possible completions to be incrementally available.

This should prevent blocking user input on slower systems.
Comment 6 Ross Girshick 2004-03-03 20:05:27 UTC
Created attachment 25125 [details] [review]
idle add ensure_completion patch
Comment 7 Ross Girshick 2004-03-03 20:58:18 UTC
I've created a patch to try out my last thought about handling the
stat and access in batches. It seems to work well on my machine, but
it's rather fast. If someone who has been suffering from this bug
would like to try it out that would be appreciated. Also, you might
want to play with the batch size. Right now it's 100, but that might
still be too large and ruin the feeling of interactive typing.
Comment 8 Ross Girshick 2004-03-03 20:59:14 UTC
Created attachment 25129 [details] [review]
fill GCompletion object in batches
Comment 9 Ben Davis 2004-03-04 03:23:10 UTC
My machine is an athlo XP 1800, not a "slow" machine (imho). I just
used the Run dialog after a few days of not touching my computer,  and
it took about 10 seconds after I typed the letters "gca" to get
gcalctool.  Would this really be something that processor speed has
much of an impact on, or would it have more to do w/ HD seek times, or
filesystem-related stuff? 

Anyways, I'm not a developer,  but I think it would be best if the
"completion" items load as soon as the run dialog is opened, (before
user starts typing) and gives some indication or message that it is
searching the user's path.
Comment 10 Vincent Untz 2004-03-04 10:47:11 UTC
Ross: I think the second patch is not what we want.

Let's try this:

  * in panel_run_dialog_present() you add a function in the idle loop
to search for executables.

  * in entry_event() the autocompletion stuff happens only when this
function has ended (you can use a gboolean like completion_ended for
that). If the function has not ended, we just skip the autocompletion
stuff. This should not block the UI.

  * when the function ends, if there the user typed some characters,
then do the autocompletion.
Comment 11 Ross Girshick 2004-03-04 13:46:36 UTC
Vincent: I'll give that a try later today. I think that I might be
missing something fundamental about how glib's idle loop works. It's
single threaded, right? When a function is selected from the idle
queue  will it run until completion, blocking other events? Or does
glib give it a max time slice? My impresssion was that once an idle
handler starts running it will go until it's finished. That's why I'm
thinking that our problem here is not g_completion_complete() blocking
the UI, but rather that the filling function blocks the UI because it
takes too long to run, sometimes.
Comment 12 Vincent Untz 2004-03-04 13:58:04 UTC
Ross: you're absolutely right and I was wrong :-) I should have
thought a bit before writing this comment.

Ok... Maybe we should try with g_main_context_iteration().
Hrm... I don't have a lot of time right now to look at this. Maybe
Comment 13 Ross Girshick 2004-03-04 14:52:02 UTC
Vincent: using g_main_context_iteration() seems like a big patch
because we would have to muck with the event loop for the whole panel
app. Naturally, I'm going to give a voice of support for patch that I
posted above (batches) :-). This patch was just a proof of concept,
and I realize that it contains at least one bug. With a few tricks,
though, it can be done in the amount of space as is currently used -
by working on the dialog.executables list in reverse and giving
g_completion_add_items() a pointer to first available valid completion

executables list:

full paths to access and stat      tested good basenames
Comment 14 Ross Girshick 2004-03-05 00:49:22 UTC
Below is a fixed version of the batch patch. It uses the same amount
of space as the original since it works on the list in place intead of
creating a new list.

I tested this on my old PIII laptop with gentoo. The run dialog used
to be unusable for 10-15 seconds. Now it's more or less interactive
(there are a few brief pauses when typing). More testers would be
Comment 15 Ross Girshick 2004-03-05 00:50:21 UTC
Created attachment 25185 [details] [review]
Updated batch patch
Comment 16 Michal Kašpar 2004-03-05 11:27:09 UTC
With concern of slow computer, my is Duron 1300 with 256MB of mem,
which I do not consider that slow and in my case, first use of Run
after not using is for a while is at least half a minute, which makes
it totaly useless. But as I wrote before, the problem is the amount of
files that have to be stated.
I thing the main problem is the behaviour itself. I use run dialog
becouse I want to run some app quickly and in most cases I do not need
autocomplete because commands are usually short. So I think it's wrong
to autocomplete here until I ask to (something like TAB key in bash,
but problem here is, that its used for something else).
So my requirements for Run diaalog are:
1) start as fast as possible
2) and let my write in any command immediately
3) if i ask for it, try to autocomplete
If it doesn't interfere with first two requirements, its of course
possible to build list of possible autocompletes. I hate to wait for
something I very rarely use.
Just my point of view.
Comment 17 Morten Welinder 2004-05-14 17:27:26 UTC
Using both access and stat sounds silly to me.  stat should be enough.

That being said, I think the readdir direction is better.  Just fill in the
cache with all names in the path, executable or not.  Initially all names
are mapped to "maybe".  Later, when and if someone wants to complete "fo",
then go out and stat all "maybe" entries starting with "fo".  Those that
are executable get changed to "yes", the rest get deleted.

That should be ~20x faster.  And it's not hard.

Comment 18 Morten Welinder 2004-05-14 18:39:58 UTC
Created attachment 27713 [details] [review]
Patch to limit stat to only what we need

There you go.  Testing welcome.

Notice, that I didn't even resolve the access issue.
Comment 19 Gabor Farkas 2004-05-28 06:22:03 UTC
*** Bug 142895 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20 Mark McLoughlin 2004-06-02 13:27:04 UTC
Frank: any thoughts on this?
Comment 21 Frank Worsley 2004-06-03 18:08:48 UTC
I think the problem here might be power management where the harddrive spins
down. That's why it doesn't work for some people after not using their computer
for a while. I don't use PM, so my drive never spins down and I never see this
problem. I've got an Athlon 700, 512MB mem. 

My computer is old compared to the machines other people have, so I highly doubt
it is general hard drive seek times. If the problem really is PM, then even just
stating what we need wont help because the drive will still need to spin up.

Nautilus does completion by loading all files in whatever directory you are
completing in. It also has to stat the files, so I bet Nautilus is also slow the
first time after not using your computer for a while. Maybe someone who has run
dialog problems could test that.

Anyway, if PM is a problem and it also affects just reading a directory, without
 doing access/stat, then I'm not sure what the best solution is. Otherwise I
think just adding everything in $PATH is easiest, normally everything in there
is gonna be an executable.

The patch I added to HEAD that completes on files/directories is another
problem, since it has to stat the same way that Nautilus does. But maybe
directories with only a few items aren't a big deal?
Comment 22 Morten Welinder 2004-06-03 18:25:48 UTC
I simply don't believe PM is the problem.  You can *hear* PM in action.

The problem here is that the run dialog goes out and stats thousands of files.
That will always take a while, but when you have left the computer along for a
while it will take even longer as directory metadata in caches have likely been
tossed.  (Obviously things are even worse if the drive has to spin up.)

Please run under strace and ask yourself if the observed behaviour is
reasonable, even if on your computer it happens to finish fast enough not
to be a problem.

You can simulate the situation by running under valgrind -- instant processor
downgrade, :-)  Alternatively, put some NFS directory into your PATH.

The solution here is not to do things we don't have to.  In this case, when we
need completions for "d", don't stat files that don't start with "d".  That's
a simple and very effective solution.

To summarize: thing that make this a problem:

* Slow computers.
* PATH no longer in kernel's cache.
* Long PATH, lots of files in PATH.
* Slow file systems, notably remote ones.

For reference, if I hit <tab> twice in a shell, I get asked about 3438 possible
Comment 23 Frank Worsley 2004-06-04 02:27:56 UTC
FWIW, I just briefly looked at the bash source and it also does access/stat on
every file in PATH as it tab-completes until it finds a match. So if you just
hit tab twice that would mean it accesses/stats every file, unless I
misunderstood the code. After stating once it keeps the info in a hashtable for
future use.

That means to me it is not simply a slow computer problem. As mentioned before,
the people who experience this problem don't have slow computers and it only
happens for them after they don't use their computer for a long time. I still
think it might be PM related, but I can't get my drive to spin down, so I can't
test it.

I bet that if you start a new shell, walk away from your computer, and
double-tab as soon as you come back you will experience the same slowness. Of
course that still doesn't solve the problem or address the issue of slow

- Frank
Comment 24 Michal Kašpar 2004-06-04 06:50:56 UTC
I found out, that one of the reasons it took too long on my (I believe faily
fast computer) was partly filesystem problem. After I changed from jfs to other
filesystem, it changed from unusably long to long.
And to bash. The difference is, that in bash, you do not have to hit tab twice
to write any command. My only objection is, that Run dialog tries to be smarter
then me. I know, when I need completition, I know when I do not need it.
Comment 25 Morten Welinder 2004-06-04 15:00:31 UTC
I just checked using strace what bash actually does.  If you type "d" <tab>,
then it stats everything in the path starting with "d".  That's first of all
<5% of all files -- thus 20x speedup -- and secondly happens only when asked
Comment 26 Albert Vilella 2004-06-06 22:44:16 UTC
I noticed that even the window for "Run application" takes some time to load.

So my 2c of how I would like it to behave:
1) start as fast as possible
2) and let my write in any command immediately
3) autocomplete if set as an option (ala-KDE)

KDE has different options about autocompletion, which I suppose that, in our
case, can be defined according to the slowness one is happy to accept to have,
for example, automatic autocompletion (like right now), or TAB-triggered
autocompletion (ala-bash)...

Just my point of view.
Comment 27 Frank Worsley 2004-06-14 01:21:54 UTC
Created attachment 28671 [details] [review]
patch for CVS head

Here's a patch for CVS head that will only stat items that match the prefix the
user entered. Testing welcome. CVS head also autocompletes on
files/directories. Hopefully this will be fast enough so that we don't have to
add an option to turn it off.
Comment 28 alexander.winston 2004-07-09 22:34:30 UTC
*** Bug 123644 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 29 Sybren Stüvel 2004-07-22 09:15:57 UTC
I'm seeing the same behaviour on Gnome 2.6 on Gentoo current. IMHO, only
searching for executable names after the first letter has been typed is a
perfectly good solution. Why search for all the executables if 95% of them is
going to be discarded the moment someone types a single letter?
Comment 30 Calum Benson 2004-10-21 15:57:23 UTC
Marking AP4 to reflect accessibility impact.
Comment 31 Calum Benson 2004-10-21 16:47:17 UTC
Apologies for spam-- ensuring Sun a11y team are cc'ed on all current a11y bugs.
 Filter on "SUN A11Y SPAM" to ignore.
Comment 32 albert vilella 2004-11-01 17:21:38 UTC
gmrun has pretty much good behaviour:

much better than "Run Application" in the same computer with the same conditions.
Comment 33 Mark McLoughlin 2004-11-10 09:54:48 UTC
Frank: you don't need approval for patches to your own code :-)

The fact that the run dialog uses the new menu code may have made this better,
or indeed may have made it worse. It feels a little better to me, though.
Comment 34 Frank Worsley 2004-11-11 04:29:17 UTC
Hi Mark ... haven't done any Gnome coding in a while so my environment isn't
really setup. I would appreciate it if you could review/commit this. I don't
fully trust my C skills either! :-)
Comment 35 James 2004-12-24 17:33:29 UTC
I have this problem on an athlon 2200+, 512 mb ddr, and a maxtor 7200 rpm
ata/100 drive. I don't use any form of power management (my hard drive stays on
all the time).  Hope that helps. :)
Comment 36 Ben Davis 2005-01-29 17:11:03 UTC
I'm still seeing this problem in Gnome-2.8.  I have several workmates that also
Comment 37 Maximilian Präger 2005-02-02 00:32:50 UTC
Yep, it seems to be still in 2.8.
Could we - at least - have the autocompletion as an option somewhere so that
those of us that don't want/need it can switch it off until it is fixed?
Comment 38 Vincent Untz 2005-02-02 08:10:55 UTC
See bug #152025. Patches are welcome.
Comment 39 Kjartan Maraas 2005-02-02 14:29:51 UTC
But is this bug here blocking on someone reviewing Frank's patch? Vincent, could
you find time to do that? Anyone else?
Comment 40 Vincent Untz 2005-02-02 14:42:37 UTC
I'm planning to review the patch before the 2.9.91 release... (note that this
bug is 2.10.x targeted)
Comment 41 Kjartan Maraas 2005-02-02 15:04:11 UTC
Great. Won't that hopefully remove the argument for the option to turn off this
Comment 42 Vincent Untz 2005-02-02 15:14:53 UTC
I'm not sure. I have plans to make a "reduced resource" mode for the panel...
Comment 43 Frank Worsley 2005-02-02 16:24:52 UTC
Hi. I'm not sure if my patch still applies cleanly. If someone wants to update
it, I'm sure Vincent or Mark will apply it. I pretty much dropped the ball on
this one, sorry about that. Should have applied the patch ASAP back then - don't
really have time for it these days. :-(
Comment 44 Vincent Untz 2005-02-03 10:16:53 UTC
I committed a modified version of Frank's patch. Tests are welcome.