Bug 193215

Summary:	vino-server starts consuming more and more CPU
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Joseba García Etxebarria <josebagar>
Component:	vino	Assignee:	Carl Worth (Ampere) <cworth>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	4	CC:	russ+bugzilla-redhat
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	2.13.5-6	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-01-23 01:04:06 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Joseba García Etxebarria 2006-05-26 05:23:53 UTC

Description of problem:
The load of Vino-server becomes about 90 % of the cpu while idle. It goes as far
as 99% of total cpu usage. A simple "killall -HUP vino-server" reduces cpu load
to 5-10 %. Recompiling and updating to the latest available fc5 srpm (after
removing the "avahi" dependence from the spec file) works flawlessly, and seems
to solve the bug.
This same bug seems to have been issued for Ubuntu here:
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/vino/+bug/31037

Version: vino-2.10.0-4.1.i386.rpm (latest available through yum)

Comment 1 Russell Odom 2006-11-06 22:06:09 UTC

This appears to be fixed upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332011

I've experienced this bug just now, with vino-2.13.5-4.1 on x86_64 FC6. Any
chance of an updated release?

Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2006-12-03 19:38:06 UTC

My bad. I put the patch in cvs mid-October, but forgot to push an update...

Comment 3 Russell Odom 2006-12-12 08:32:47 UTC

I see 2.13.5-6 has been pushed out through updates - is this now fixed?

Comment 4 Christian Iseli 2007-01-22 11:19:29 UTC

This report targets the FC3 or FC4 products, which have now been EOL'd.

Could you please check that it still applies to a current Fedora release, and
either update the target product or close it ?

Thanks.

Comment 5 Russell Odom 2007-01-22 18:21:55 UTC

The issue also affected FC6 and I presume FC5 too. I have not seen a recurrence
since 2.13.5-6 was released, so although there's been no response to my comment
3  I think it's safe to close now (I don't have permission to do this though).

Comment 6 Carl Worth (Ampere) 2007-01-23 01:04:06 UTC

Thanks. Based on the above, marking as fixed as of 2.13.5-6.

-Carl