Bug 90760 - Screensavers consuming too much CPU
Summary: Screensavers consuming too much CPU
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: xscreensaver   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 7.3
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bill Nottingham
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-05-13 14:11 UTC by Michael Waite
Modified: 2014-03-17 02:36 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-06-19 18:07:47 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael Waite 2003-05-13 14:11:16 UTC
I did see a few issues still, but none of them are as serious as before. A
couple still chew up a lot of cpu.

-"Maze" does not work, and causes X to chew up to 99.9% of the cpu, but the
difference from before is that the machine is still usable, before it wasn't.
- Decayscreen chews up 80-89% cpu.

Not sure if you care about these other screen saver issues, but since I saw them
I thought I'd mention them even though there is no real impact.

- Crystal will cause any screen savers run after it to not work
- Flag is in the list twice
- GLPlanet is blank on GX260s
- Lisa & Noseguy don't work, just show previous screen saver not moving
- Pipes is just flickers on GX260s

I only tried on Gnome since that is where I saw the issues before.
Action by: mwaite
Issue Registered
Action by: mwaite
Searching Bugzilla now for previous entries.

mwaite assigned to issue for Nortel/CSC.

Category set to: X Windows::Gnome
Status set to: Waiting on Tech

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2003-05-19 00:11:05 UTC
Many of the screensavers try to draw as fast as possible... this will cause them
to use CPU. If this is not desired, pick a different one, or, for instance, a
blank screen.

The GX260-related problems sound like graphics card specific issues. 

Comment 2 Jamie Zawinski 2003-06-19 10:08:32 UTC
For the record, *none* of the screensavers try to draw as fast as possible: all
of them (by default) spend enough time in usleep() that they should not be
loading the system significantly.  Plus, xscreensaver runs all of them at a low
priority with nice.

(The unfortunate exception to this is the case of OpenGL hacks running on
systems without GL hardware, in which case, the X server itself tremendously
loads the machine.)

However, it would be normal for a screensaver to consume 80%+ of the CPU -- if
the CPU would otherwise have been *completely idle*.  That is, the saver should
never make the load go above 1.0, though *approaching* 1.0 would be expected.

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2003-06-19 18:07:47 UTC
Closing as not a bug; as jwz said things are acting more or less as designed.

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