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 144085 - CPU usage extremely high when lots of text scrolling
CPU usage extremely high when lots of text scrolling
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 137864
Product: gnome-terminal
Classification: Core
Component: general
2.6.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Terminal Maintainers
GNOME Terminal Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-06-10 10:37 UTC by Duncan
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Duncan 2004-06-10 10:37:35 UTC
When doing some operation that produces a lot of text output, eg 'cat'ing a file
or a build producing reams of warnings, the combined CPU usage of gnome-terminal
and X hits >90% (split 30% to g-t & 60% to X).

People on various forums/articles have notices/winged about this so I guess lots
of people have come across this issue. (eg comments in
http://lwn.net/Articles/88161/). Some have suggested the issue is to do with AA
fonts but others disagree.

Perhaps a solution would be to buffer the output from the clients that are
writing to the terminal and then only update the display at a certian framerate
eg 30fps. Perhaps if the window is not maped to the current desktop or is wholly
obscured by another window then no output is necessary and CPU use could be saved.
Comment 1 janne hayrynen 2004-07-01 09:31:01 UTC
The rendering performance of gnome-terminal has gotten worse lately in my
opinion too.

When unpacking a big tgz archive (and nothing else is stressing xserver) top
looks like this:
  900 root       6 -10  124m  49m  77m S 78.0  4.8 134:05.23 XFree86
 1306 sniff     15   0  100m  80m  16m S 12.6  7.9   2:40.44 gnome-terminal
31032 sniff     15   0  1876  452 1396 S  2.6  0.0   0:00.16 gzip
31031 sniff     16   0  2432  844 2256 R  2.3  0.1   0:00.12 tar

the tar unpacking speed is actually limited by gnome-terminals ability to
prosess it's output.

I'm using Nvidia's binary drivers for my graphics card, hardware setup is Athlon
XP 1600+, Epox 8KHA+, 1GB RAM, Geforce4 mx440. gnome-terminal is version 2.6.1.
Comment 2 janne hayrynen 2004-07-01 10:15:43 UTC
Comparison:

- In gnome-terminal (80x24)

time tar -xzvf linux-2.6.7.tar.gz
real    1m40.407s
user    0m3.644s
sys     0m2.639s

- In xterm (80x24)

time tar -xzvf linux-2.6.7.tar.gz
real    0m24.914s
user    0m3.805s
sys     0m2.647s

- In text mode console
time tar -xzvf linux-2.6.7.tar.gz
real    0m6.335s
user    0m3.588s
sys     0m2.525s

- Output redirected to /dev/null
time tar -xzvf linux-2.6.7.tar.gz > /dev/null
real    0m5.692s
user    0m3.564s
sys     0m1.810s
Comment 3 janne hayrynen 2004-07-01 15:15:13 UTC
Just for comparison, kde's konsole (although without AntiAlias) handle's the
task even faster than xterm, in 11 seconds, and updating is completely smooth,
you can't see the actual drawing take place.
Comment 4 janne hayrynen 2004-07-01 17:22:51 UTC
Sorry for the spam, i promise this is the last one...

More about the kde, in fullscreen mode and even smaller than default font, time
for the above task went up from the previous 11s to only 17 seconds _with_
transparency.

With gnome-terminal fullscreen/maximized, with smaller font (well actually
smaller zoom level, since that results in a better quality font) and
transparency, i see interesting results. Apparently the screen update rate is
more CPU, than network bound (or xserver bound, effectively). I get better
framerates from remote 2ghz machine over 10mbit connection, than from 1.4ghz
machine run locally, the fps for these machines are 3-4 and 1-2 respectively.

remote starting times weren't good either, 20seconds+ for transparent window in
1600x1200 screen.

okay, that's all for me, please someone notice this

\||/
~oO~
\_U/


Comment 5 Mariano Suárez-Alvarez 2004-07-01 18:28:39 UTC
Please note we -are- aware of this issues. The problem is that what is needed to
resolve them is much more fine grained work than cat'ing some huge file and
timing it: gnome-terminal (or rather vte) needs to be run with a profiler, and
the bottle necks need to be identified. There are also interations with the X
server being used, as the XRender extension is being used quite intensively to
render the fonts.

(Btw, zooming works simply by changing the font size, so it is odd that you get
better looking fonts by zooming than by changing the size ;-) )
Comment 6 janne hayrynen 2004-07-01 18:46:38 UTC
Yeah, sorry for the spam, i just thought since this was still unconfirmed i'd
post a comment to bring this up..

Oh you're right about the zoom, i must be a while ago when i tried different
font sizes, fonts scale nicely now.
Comment 7 Mariano Suárez-Alvarez 2004-07-01 18:55:21 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 137864 ***