Bug 193215 - vino-server starts consuming more and more CPU
Summary: vino-server starts consuming more and more CPU
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: vino
Version: 4
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Carl Worth (Ampere)
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-05-26 05:23 UTC by Joseba García Etxebarria
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version: 2.13.5-6
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-01-23 01:04:06 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
GNOME Bugzilla 332011 0 None None None Never

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



Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.