pulseaudio memory usage possible leak

[Paolo Galtieri]

I agree that the numbers don't prove it one way or the other.  I was just
pointing out that showing numbers doesn't help.

As to the issues with firefox it could be flash, but the previous version of
firefox, given the same open tabs and content didn't show such high CPU
usage as soon as it starts.   I'm running the 64 bit firefox and it really
sucks when it comes to sites which use flash heavily it crashes repeatedly.

Paolo

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Reid Rivenburgh <reidr at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Paolo Galtieri <pgaltieri at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't think you have an issue.  Here's what mine shows with an uptime
> of 1
> > day
> >
> > PR  NI  VIRT   RES    SHR  S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> > 20   0   1118m 317m  34m  S   40.4   15.8         4:50.01
> > firefox
> >  9  -11  501m   2940   2080 S     2.6   0.1          41:02.09 pulseaudio
> >
> > Notice that firefox shows substantially more.
>
> I'm not sure that's a compelling defense there....  They're very
> different apps.  I have no idea if 501m is reasonable for pulseaudio.
>
> > BTW, has anyone else noted that the latest firefox (3.5.8) is a CPU hog?
>
> In my experience, that's often caused by flash running on a page or
> some extension behaving poorly.  Is that possible in your case?
>
> reid
> --
> users mailing list
> users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100220/d624cac6/attachment.html