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 514399 - Changing background takes 50-100% cpu usage
Changing background takes 50-100% cpu usage
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 523328
Product: gnome-control-center
Classification: Core
Component: [obsolete] Appearance
2.20.x
Other All
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: Control-Center Maintainers
Control-Center Maintainers
: 572025 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2008-02-04 20:17 UTC by Crooksey
Modified: 2009-02-16 21:48 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.19/2.20



Description Crooksey 2008-02-04 20:17:11 UTC
Please describe the problem:
When changing the background within gnome, my CPU usage (both cores) jumps to between 50% and 100% CPU usage.

This is displayed from "top" and the Gnome System Monitor, closing the window does not reduce CPU usage, I have to kill the process.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Right click desktop, change background.
2. 
3. 


Actual results:
Background window opens fine, just takes a lot of CPU usage.

Expected results:
To open with around 1% CPU usage.

Does this happen every time?
Yes, sometimes randomly.

Other information:
crooksey@localhost ~ $ uname -a
Linux localhost 2.6.23-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jan 15 06:34:36 UTC 2008 i686 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

----------------------------

crooksey@localhost ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo 
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 15
model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz
stepping        : 6
cpu MHz         : 1795.530
cache size      : 4096 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 2
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 2
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 10
wp              : yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips	: 3594.08
clflush size	: 64

processor	: 1
vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
cpu family	: 6
model		: 15
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz
stepping	: 6
cpu MHz		: 1795.530
cache size	: 4096 KB
physical id	: 0
siblings	: 2
core id		: 1
cpu cores	: 2
fdiv_bug	: no
hlt_bug		: no
f00f_bug	: no
coma_bug	: no
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 10
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips	: 3592.66
clflush size	: 64
Comment 1 Jens Granseuer 2008-02-05 14:19:36 UTC
Can you please provide a profile 8using sysprof, oprofile, or something similar) when that happens? Thanks.
Comment 2 Crooksey 2008-02-05 15:44:28 UTC
I think the log you need for sysprof is here:

http://phil0d0x.com/~crooksey/configs/log
Comment 3 Jens Granseuer 2008-02-05 19:27:55 UTC
From the info in the trace I suspect the cause is a misbehaving theme engine. It would be very helpful if you could uninstall (especially non-standard) theme engines one by one and rerun appearance-properties to see if it improves things. If you cannot do that, at least provide a list of the engines you have installed, please.
Comment 4 Crooksey 2008-02-05 23:34:36 UTC
gtk-engines 2.12.2-1

Nothing else, all standard.
Comment 5 Jens Granseuer 2008-02-21 17:11:16 UTC
Could you please check if the patch from bug 516413 makes any difference for you?
Comment 6 Jens Granseuer 2008-02-27 21:41:14 UTC
The latest release (2.21.92) has a fix for a similar problem. Can you please confirm whether that solves your problem as well?
Comment 7 Jens Granseuer 2008-09-16 18:02:42 UTC
Actually, this is much more likely a duplicate of bug 523328.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 523328 ***
Comment 8 Jens Granseuer 2009-02-16 21:48:09 UTC
*** Bug 572025 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***