Comment #8 on issue 28930 by Robert.Bradbury: Flash (libflashplayer.so process) consumes excessive CPU http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28930
My response is in regards to Evan's comments on Dec. 4, 2009. > We can't stop flash from running on background pages because people use > flash apps in > the background; for example, Pandora or MySpace to play music. No, you currently cannot, but your statement is entirely untrue with regard to the overall architecture of Linux (and perhaps the Mac) (or even if you are clever Windows). I believe in the first bug item I explained how you could yous SIGSTOP and SIGCONT to stop/restart excessive CPU using processes. This actually works, I have used it by hand. The only potential negative consequence is when the SIGCONT is issued, one may have a high-CPU use (and perhaps network use) condition when Flash/exe is restarted (and Flash attempt to "catch up" with what it wanted to receive/play -- this is *ACTUALLY* a bug that needs to resolved by joint Google/Chrome/Flashplayer/GTK synchronization -- if I am away from the terminal/keyboard/mouse for than 5+ minutes -- assume that the system (all components) should go into low power mode -- and that means suspending all music playing, all video playing, etc. -- entirely apart from the flash video/music screens should be deactivated -- unless explicitly requested for minimized/non-current workspace windows unless I have EXPLICITLY REQUESTED that that site be granted "non- active" status rights. If I have requested that, then fine let chrome receive the data and provide it in some communications path to libflashplayer.so. But DO NOT FORCE OPEN ACCESS for CHROME's use of FLASH to ALL SITES ALL THE TIME -- because any "non-secure/non-adherent" to a code of conduct sites use of FLASH is suspect. > If you are unhappy about flash, I suggest using a flash-blocking > extension, or killing it via the task manager (Page -> Developer Tools). The problem (under Linux) is that I cannot tell a Page -> Developer Tools to kill specific excessive using CPU processes. I have to figure them out using PS and grep. If I am away from my computer for 2, 4, 6, 14, 24 hours (not uncommon situations), with a computer that is largely up 24/7 because it is running an Apache Web server -- chrome's excessive, LARGELY flash CPU use is preventing it from going into GREEN(economical) states. So I have to kill the "exe" (libflashplayer.so) process to prevent this. > In the latter case we won't restart flash until a page requests a new > instance of flash. I believe this is an incorrect statement. I have had to kill the exe/libflashplayer.so process tonight (over 4+ hours) on the order of 6 times. (In my perspective it may be due to some applications setting timers that restart flash activities, including but not limited to Gmail -- which I think may be using Flash to display the current "chat" list. It is easy enough for me to design a cron process which can do this all the time -- the point being that I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT - - handing me a browser which requires me to kill parts of it every 15-30 minutes is no way to run. You can detect processes which have been killed by. Chrome should operate in a fundamentally Cell Phone Friendly/Laptop Friendly/Desktop Friendly/GREEN mode -- and it should impose/create restrictions on the activities of its subprocesses to enforce that )precisely because they consume energy, consume heat, etc.. Life, esp. intelligent, aware life, should attempt to be as cognizent as possible. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue. You may adjust your issue notification preferences at: http://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- Automated mail from issue updates at http://crbug.com/ Subscription options: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-bugs
