On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:27:23 -0600 "Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
it could be old e config and the battery module is polling really fast: 1. rm -rf ~/.e 2. start e and see. other than that e is querying your battery for information likely via /proc/acpi/... or possibly another one of the battery interfaces. on some systems a poll is very expensive - possibly due to acpi being slow to respond in the virtual machine or complex, or buggy - it could be that the way the battery module gets acpi info is not efficient (it gets both info AND state each poll - info in theory could be fetched once only and kept, but i have not checked). note - NOTHING has changed with e17'sw battery polling for acpi beyond polling frequency above to reduce wakeups. > I installed E DR17 yesterday (with the help of Prof K's RPMS and > advice) and was troubled that it was using 40-80% of the system CPU, > even if the PC was sitting idle. I started searching posts in this > list and saw Raster's blog, which (2 years ago) showed that E with no > modules was very fast and light. But on my system, it was bloated and > sometimes slow. > > What the hell? > > I removed modules one by one until the CPU usage dropped into the > normal (less than 5% range) and, guess what (drum roll please): > > The battery module was the culprit! > > In this Dell D820 laptop, I have 2 batteries. One is the usual, one > is in the so-called "external bay" and it can be swapped for a CDROM. > I should have realized E was having trouble with this because the > battery monitor reported nutty values like 143% and it constantly told > me my battery was almost out of power. Removing the battery module > solves the CPU problem. What a relief. the 143% is likely due to acpi simply being broken in what it reports. go to /proc/acpi/battery/.... and check the contents of files for yourself. > I realized I can run "gnome-panel" or the KDE kicker on one side, and > the E shelf on the other, and can use the battery monitor from those > other programs. > > I did remove the second battery and try the battery module again, but > it still showed high CPU usage. So I don't know for sure what to > conclude. Perhaps the whole framework of the motherboard & chassis > has it confused? > > If any developers want more information to investigate this, or you > want me to file a formal bug report (in case this is not known > already) I will do. > > pj > > > -- > Paul E. Johnson > Professor, Political Science > 1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504 > University of Kansas > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
