[CentOS] Anyone else think the latest Xorg fix is hogging stuff?

Sun Jun 28 10:32:45 UTC 2015
Bill Maltby (C4B) <centos4bill at gmail.com>

On Sat, 2015-06-27 at 21:17 -0400, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> On 06/27/15 17:05, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote:
> > Since the latest update (may wrap here),
> > xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.15.0-26.el6.centos.0.1.x86_64 Sat 20 Jun 2015
> > 04:16:01 PM EDT
> > xorg-x11-server-common-1.15.0-26.el6.centos.0.1.x86_64 Sat 20 Jun 2015
> > 04:15:58 PM EDT
> > <snip

> > 
> > Xorg is competing heavily with FF for top hog on my system. In FF I
> > understand because I had multiple windows (6 desktops) with many tabs. I
> > know this would theoretically increase Xorg work as well but prior to
> > this update I seldom saw it near the top of "top"
> > 
> >   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+
> > COMMAND                                                
> >  4055 hardtolo  20   0 2165m 945m  49m R 95.9 12.0   3724:26
> > firefox                                                
> >  3119 root      20   0  276m 121m  34m S 34.0  1.6   2228:58
> > Xorg                                                   
> > 15645 hardtolo  20   0 6163m 350m  26m S 10.6  4.5 181:50.51
> > java                                                   
> >  5663 hardtolo  20   0 1557m 202m  24m S  9.6  2.6 294:53.69
> > plugin-containe                                        
> > <snip>

> > Anyone else pound the crap out of a desktop with FF and see Xorg getting
> > "fat"?
> > 
> > TIA for any clues or response.
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> 
> Here's what I see with three FF sessions running at the same time:
> 
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> 
>  2631 fahclien  39  19  832m 530m 3012 S 637.9  1.7 311:40.44 FahCore_a4
> 
>  4236 mlapier   20   0 2530m 1.4g  42m R 83.7  4.6   2:50.27 firefox
> 
>  2823 root      20   0  163m  42m  17m S 19.9  0.1   1:31.18 Xorg
> 
>  3429 mlapier   20   0  625m 158m  39m S  2.3  0.5   1:06.08 skype
> 
Thanks Mark.

Do you happen to know (recall?) if this is more or less in-line with
what went on before the latest Xorg fix?

I may not be doing too badly. I also run 3 users in three X sessions.
Two have six desktops and one has two desktops. The last is my "idle"
user, never doing anything, that sits on tty1 so I can have my active
users like they were before the CentOS 6.6 upgrade - the first X session
used to come on tty7 and did not screw up when switching run levels
to/from 3 and 5 (bug open on CentOS, but I suspect not passed
upstream?).

This is on my home-built box on an MSI 760GM-P23FX MB, SATA.

>From lspci -v, some things that may affect me?
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
[AMD/ATI] Cedar [Radeon HD 5000/6000/7350/8350 Series] (prog-if 00 [VGA
controller])
        Subsystem: Diamond Multimedia Systems Device 5450
        Kernel driver in use: radeon
        Kernel modules: radeon
CPU stuff, 6 cores:
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
cpu family      : 16
model           : 10
model name      : AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1035T Processor
stepping        : 0
cpu MHz         : 800.000
cache size      : 512 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 6
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 6
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 6
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext
fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good
nonstop_tsc extd_apicid aperfmperf pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm
cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch
osvw ibs skinit wdt nodeid_msr cpb npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save
pausefilter
bogomips        : 5200.20

Memory: $ free (may wrap)
             total       used       free     shared    buffers
cached
Mem:       8057968    2675424    5382544      12192     104652
1149796
-/+ buffers/cache:    1420976    6636992
Swap:     14352376          0   14352376

Do you/anyone think my Xorg CPU usage looks reasonable all things
considered or should I be looking for some "tweaks"?

TIA,
Bill