Indeed per the upstream discussion there *might* be things that can be
improved in mutter to reduce this problem. But at the same time it is
somewhat expected behaviour. Only unexpected above some unknowable
threshold of CPU usage that is system-dependent.

So this bug is not invalid, but also not definitely valid, currently
"Opinion".

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to gnome-shell in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1999578

Title:
  Bursts of high CPU usage after triggering overview

Status in GNOME Shell:
  New
Status in gnome-shell package in Ubuntu:
  Opinion

Bug description:
  As requested in the upstream bug report
  https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/6137, I hereby
  file the downstream issue:

  I am experiencing high cpu usage of gnome-shell in situations where I
  would not expect it, leading to my fans running more often and wasting
  my battery on my Dell XPS 13 9310 2-in1.

  The problem can be seen in action here: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9o7a7BGPE4
  See also the upstream report for syscap recordings of such situations.

  I think there might be a correlation with firefox being opened on
  another workspace (but no video or any other playback happening). At
  least everytime I notice that my an comes on for no reason and I fire
  up top to see gnome shell consuming too much cpu, when I kill all my
  firefox windows gnome shell cpu usage goes down as well, but that
  could be pure coincidence.

  At least I can safely rule out the triple buffering downstream ubuntu
  mutter patch, since I recompiled mutter without the patch and it does
  not really change the problem much.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gnome-shell/+bug/1999578/+subscriptions


-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
Post to     : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to