Bug#828204: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#828204: light-locker: Without chrome running, obeys xfce4-power-manager. With chrome, usually doesn't.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 03:51:01PM -0400, Fred Korz wrote:
> On 06/26/2016 03:07 PM, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On sam., 2016-06-25 at 22:05 -0400, Fred Korz wrote:
> > > Since then, if google chrome (stable) is not running, power management on
> > > the
> > > display works just as set.
> > >
> > > However, if google chrome is running, for a while display blanking and
> > > turndown
> > > works as configured, but eventually blanking doesn't work.
> > My first guess would be that google chrome uses inhibition to prevent screen
> > blanking/locking. Does it matter which tabs are open in google chrome?
> >
> > Regards,
>
> I had thought that too, that perhaps vlc were using inhibition, but shutting
> down vlc or not starting it had no effect.
>
> As to chrome, not that I can tell if a particular tab is causing it. With
> 20 windows averaging 10 tabs/window, and a minimum of 3 minutes wait per
> sample to tell the outcome, that's not really practical. That would be
> O(10) hours worst case, O(5) hours if found half way through. (Yes, I could
> use binary rather than linear search, but I'd have to figure out a way to
> store and restore the serious amount of state held in those windows and
> tabs.)
>
> I suspect that there is a combination of (1) inhibition, which I don't know
> a practical way of finding, but hoped the package maintainers could suggest
> so I could chase it down,
No, I don't know any practical way of finding, but I'm pretty sure
Internet will know, sorry.
> and (2) an assumption in light-locker of an
> installed screen locking which is violated when there's no screensaver
> installed (which seems to run counter to the self-containment goal of
> light-locker and the lack of a package dependency on any screensaver).
>
> To that second point:
>
>If I run 'light-locker-command --lock', I get blanking, light off, power
> minimization and locking.
>
>If I run 'light-locker-command --activate', which I believe the man page
> suggests will do all the above except lock, instead it goes through as if it
> expected to rely on a screen locker as a barrier but it comes back with the
> complaint, previously cited above, about locker failure. I tried all the
> permutations on xfce4-power-manager-setting of "Automatically lock the
> session" in {"Never", "When screensaver is activated",
> "When screensaver is deactivated"} crossed with "Lock screen when system is
> going for sleep" in {checked, unchecked}.
>
Yes, light-locker *is* the locker. When itself talks about screensaver,
it talks about the Xorg screensaver (so the screen blanking).
Light-locker can automagically locks when X11 screensaver engages
itself. It can also be called manually (through light-locker-command)
and (try to) force DPMS blanking as well, after doing the vt-switch to
the login screen.
Regards,
--
Yves-Alexis Perez
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#828204: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#828204: light-locker: Without chrome running, obeys xfce4-power-manager. With chrome, usually doesn't.
On 06/26/2016 03:07 PM, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On sam., 2016-06-25 at 22:05 -0400, Fred Korz wrote:
Since then, if google chrome (stable) is not running, power management on the
display works just as set.
However, if google chrome is running, for a while display blanking and turndown
works as configured, but eventually blanking doesn't work.
My first guess would be that google chrome uses inhibition to prevent screen
blanking/locking. Does it matter which tabs are open in google chrome?
Regards,
I had thought that too, that perhaps vlc were using inhibition, but
shutting down vlc or not starting it had no effect.
As to chrome, not that I can tell if a particular tab is causing it.
With 20 windows averaging 10 tabs/window, and a minimum of 3 minutes
wait per sample to tell the outcome, that's not really practical. That
would be O(10) hours worst case, O(5) hours if found half way through.
(Yes, I could use binary rather than linear search, but I'd have to
figure out a way to store and restore the serious amount of state held
in those windows and tabs.)
I suspect that there is a combination of (1) inhibition, which I don't
know a practical way of finding, but hoped the package maintainers could
suggest so I could chase it down, and (2) an assumption in light-locker
of an installed screen locking which is violated when there's no
screensaver installed (which seems to run counter to the
self-containment goal of light-locker and the lack of a package
dependency on any screensaver).
To that second point:
If I run 'light-locker-command --lock', I get blanking, light off,
power minimization and locking.
If I run 'light-locker-command --activate', which I believe the man
page suggests will do all the above except lock, instead it goes through
as if it expected to rely on a screen locker as a barrier but it comes
back with the complaint, previously cited above, about locker failure.
I tried all the permutations on xfce4-power-manager-setting of
"Automatically lock the session" in {"Never", "When screensaver is
activated",
"When screensaver is deactivated"} crossed with "Lock screen when system
is going for sleep" in {checked, unchecked}.
Fred
Bug#828204: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#828204: light-locker: Without chrome running, obeys xfce4-power-manager. With chrome, usually doesn't.
On sam., 2016-06-25 at 22:05 -0400, Fred Korz wrote: > Since then, if google chrome (stable) is not running, power management on the > display works just as set. > > However, if google chrome is running, for a while display blanking and > turndown > works as configured, but eventually blanking doesn't work. My first guess would be that google chrome uses inhibition to prevent screen blanking/locking. Does it matter which tabs are open in google chrome? Regards, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
