OESF Portables Forum
Model Specific Forums => Sharp Zaurus => Zaurus - pdaXrom => Topic started by: iamasmith on February 11, 2006, 08:34:58 am
-
Hi,
I'm just wondering what memory utilisation you are seeing in xfce4. I end up with about 2Mb free running OpenBSD with the full xfce4 environment running. Once a working set has been established for paging it is workable to run AbiWord etc but you do seem to see around 7 or 8Mb committed to the page file.
- Andy
-
top - 09:27:05 up 1 day, 12:39, 2 users, load average: 2.31, 2.17, 2.17
Tasks: 44 total, 4 running, 40 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 4.3% user, 48.5% system, 0.0% nice, 47.2% idle
Mem: 62808k total, 51804k used, 11004k free, 1936k buffers
Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 25508k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
3 root 120 20 0 0 0 R 46.5 0.0 905:21.08 kapm-idled
23647 albertr 9 0 7036 7036 5728 R 3.3 11.2 1:37.90 xfce4-panel
24124 albertr 13 0 1016 1016 820 R 1.6 1.6 0:00.83 top
23615 root 9 0 8904 8304 2408 S 1.3 13.2 0:52.47 X
1 root 8 0 112 112 56 S 0.0 0.2 1:02.81 init
2 root 8 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:02.58 keventd
4 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 off_thread
5 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.62 battchrgon
6 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.36 battchrgoff
7 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:20.41 sharpsl_bat
8 root 18 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 ksoftirqd_CPU0
9 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:10.52 kswapd
10 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 bdflush
11 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:53.48 kupdated
12 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcscan
13 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcenirq
14 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 buzzer
18 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 snd_hp
20 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 mtdblockd
45 root 15 10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.48 jffs2_gcd_mtd2
50 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:33.37 kjournald
52 root 9 0 0 0 0 D 0.0 0.0 0:00.01 usbh-moni
92 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:18.24 loop0
116 root 9 0 220 220 136 S 0.0 0.4 0:02.15 syslogd
118 root 9 0 256 256 180 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.30 klogd
139 root 9 0 192 192 4 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.07 cardmgr
156 root 9 0 380 380 176 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.25 sshd
164 bin 9 0 100 100 28 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.04 portmap
-albertr
-
Thanks Albert, I don't see the session manager, taskbar or desktop manager loaded... I presume that was all a little heavy for pdaXrom too
-
$ ps -aef | grep xfce | grep -v grep
albertr 23601 206 0 08:55 tty1 00:00:00 /bin/sh /usr/local/bin/startxfce4
albertr 23614 23601 0 08:55 tty1 00:00:00 xinit /home/albertr/xinitrc.xfce4 -- -nolisten tcp -kb -screen 480x640@270 -fp /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc:
albertr 23617 23614 0 08:55 tty1 00:00:00 /bin/sh /home/albertr/xinitrc.xfce4
albertr 23638 23617 0 08:55 tty1 00:00:01 xfce4-session
albertr 23640 1 0 08:55 ? 00:00:01 xfce-mcs-manager
albertr 23647 1 4 08:56 tty1 00:11:12 xfce4-panel --sm-client-id 117f000001000113159435300000102690000 --display :0.0
-albertr
-
I don't use desktop and my taskbar is integrated into the panel.
-albertr
-
Thanks Albert but what we are seeing there are the process IDs and not the memory usage
-
Well, you are not easy to please
How bout the following:
$ ps -Ao dsiz,m_size,pmem,rssize,size,vsize,command | grep xfce | grep -v grep
1694 285 1.8 1140 104 1668 /bin/sh /usr/local/bin/startxfce4
2120 159 1.0 636 52 2116 xinit /home/albertr/xinitrc.xfce4 -- -nolisten tcp -kb -screen 480x640@270 -fp /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc:
1682 279 1.7 1116 92 1656 /bin/sh /home/albertr/xinitrc.xfce4
12449 1388 8.8 5548 740 12444 xfce4-session
11751 1038 6.6 4152 536 11744 xfce-mcs-manager
13385 1759 11.2 7036 996 13380 xfce4-panel --sm-client-id 117f000001000113159435300000102690000 --display :0.0
-albertr
-
Thanks Albert, yes memory usage looks about the same... I wondered if it was something related to the malloc buckets in OpenBSD that was causing excessive memory allocation... having said that I think that libc is resonsible for most application malloc buckets so both systems will look similar. (OpenBSD Kernel has malloc buckets too though).
I wonder if there's any milage in investigating libc and tweaking the buckets so there are granular steps.. it may be a way of reducing bloat in memory allocation on things like this..
hmmm...
- Andy