FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-18-2010, 02:45 PM
Florian Philipp
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

Hi list!

I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at
night.

free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Swap: 6142 978 5163

A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?!

Excerpt from top:
VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
1094m 484m 10m S 0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox
932m 471m 15m S 0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator
384m 303m 2856 S 0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t
709m 282m 2936 S 0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices
839m 146m 15m S 0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin
191m 131m 532 S 0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon
902m 105m 5288 S 0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner
263m 105m 1724 S 0 2.8 2:31.18 squid
255m 61m 6672 S 7 1.6 305:04.24 X
1106m 55m 7756 S 0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok
534m 54m 10m S 0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete
559m 52m 6536 S 0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices
718m 38m 12m S 4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop
295m 33m 2048 S 0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld
360m 17m 1856 S 0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy
445m 16m 3392 S 0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices
365m 14m 6356 S 1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole
438m 11m 4928 S 0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4
508m 11m 6364 S 0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin

Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since
it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does
Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at
the moment and is just running minimized in the background.

Virtuoso looks like an optional Soprano dependency which in turn is
needed for Nepomuk. Are the default use flags for dev-libs/soprano
suboptimal? What happens if I choose other flags for Soprano?

The rest of the list is a bit suspicious, as well. Especially DBus and
Kopete look like they live way beyond their means (or my means ).

Do other users experience the same?

Thanks in advance!
Florian Philipp
 
Old 09-18-2010, 08:19 PM
Alex Schuster
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

Florian Philipp writes:

> I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
> breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
> grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

I was just about to write something about this. I suffered from bad
performance for quite a while now (like mplayer stuttering during
emerges), started a thread in in the gentoo-performance list and got some
advice that made things a little better, but I suspect the effect came
from reduced memory usage only. Since yesterday the problems all seem to
be gone, but again it's not a real solution, as I plugged in another 2GB
of memory, so now I have 6G.

I used to restart kdm once per day in order to free memory. If I did not
do this, KDE4 became nearly unsusabe.

> The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
> which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and
> at night.
>
> free -m
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
> -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
> Swap: 6142 978 5163
>
> A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?!

After 1 day of uptime, my system needs even more, but I'm also running
some stuff.

wonko@weird ~ $ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 5721 5618 103 0 112 1108
-/+ buffers/cache: 4397 1323
Swap: 4094 50 4044


> Excerpt from top:
> VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 1094m 484m 10m S 0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox
> 932m 471m 15m S 0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator
> 384m 303m 2856 S 0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t
> 709m 282m 2936 S 0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices
> 839m 146m 15m S 0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin
> 191m 131m 532 S 0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon
> 902m 105m 5288 S 0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner
> 263m 105m 1724 S 0 2.8 2:31.18 squid
> 255m 61m 6672 S 7 1.6 305:04.24 X
> 1106m 55m 7756 S 0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok
> 534m 54m 10m S 0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete
> 559m 52m 6536 S 0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices
> 718m 38m 12m S 4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop
> 295m 33m 2048 S 0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld
> 360m 17m 1856 S 0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy
> 445m 16m 3392 S 0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices
> 365m 14m 6356 S 1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole
> 438m 11m 4928 S 0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4
> 508m 11m 6364 S 0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin

Now this looks different here. I have X with 946M, plasma-desktop with
505M, that's 15 times the memory you need. Then comes java with 371M (for
TV-Browser - yes, 371MB just for showing the TV programme!), emerge wants
272M while emerging openoffice. Chromium also needs much memory, my 33
tabs want 762M:

VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
1722m 946m 22m R 24 16.5 217:29.77 X
1728m 504m 23m S 0 8.8 61:07.82 plasma-desktop
2018m 371m 6772 S 0 6.5 2:45.60 java
379m 272m 1884 S 0 4.8 4:39.50 emerge
2632m 127m 11m S 0 2.2 6:48.31 pica
694m 123m 21m S 0 2.2 11:28.50 kontact
1246m 117m 20m S 0 2.1 27:30.34 amarok
757m 101m 86m S 0 1.8 116:20.68 vmware-vmx
946m 94m 10m S 0 1.7 1:37.32 chrome
682m 91m 15m S 0 1.6 4:22.98 chrome
494m 79m 14m S 0 1.4 0:40.28 kmymoney
929m 61m 13m S 0 1.1 2:29.96 chrome
328m 56m 5084 S 0 1.0 1:46.09 kio_imap4
73712 49m 616 S 0 0.9 0:10.79 screen
921m 48m 30m S 0 0.8 0:01.62 systemsettings
573m 46m 14m S 0 0.8 1:36.06 dolphin

> Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since
> it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does
> Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at
> the moment and is just running minimized in the background.

Beats me.

> Virtuoso looks like an optional Soprano dependency which in turn is
> needed for Nepomuk. Are the default use flags for dev-libs/soprano
> suboptimal? What happens if I choose other flags for Soprano?

Don't know. But you can just turn off virtuoso in systemsettings-> desktop
search.
I just turned it on again, and - now I need 271M of swap, and again my
system becomes unresponsive due to the constant swapping that is going on.
With 6G!

Which is another problem I think. One question is how KDE4 can need such a
lot of memory, the other is how the system can become so unresponsive once
its starts swapping. I used to have larger swap with less RAM, and did not
have those performance problems. One year ago I usually had 2G tmpfs for
/var/tmp/portage, nowadays (with 4G) I cannot emerge things while working
with the system (like, watching videos with mplayer). It feels like as
soon as RAM is not enough and swapping occurs, the system swaps stuff that
it will need again immediately.

What stuff do I run? I have 8 activities/desktops, there are some
screenshots at [1] in case someone is interested. My default session has 4
konsoles with a total of 8 tabs, 3 dolphins with 5 views, amarok, kontact,
kmymoney2. TV-Browser (java application which eats a lot of memory), some
admin tools like gkrellm or diagnostic plasmoids. And a lot of browser
tabs, around 30. Currently I'm using chromium, that seems to use less
memory than konqueror. The number of tabs increases with uptime. Is this
too much? Desktop effects are enabled. Today I started openoffice once,
played a little quake3. There is a windows VM running with vmplayer, but
that takes only 50MB. wine uses more, I'm using this today, but normally
not.

The system is an AMD Athlon 4850e (2 cores, 2500MHz) with 4GB of RAM.
Everything is on LVM, most partitions are LUKS-encrypted. /var/tmp/portage
is unencrypted, and at the moment swap is also not encrypted and on my 2nd
drive. The encryption does not be much of an overhead, when the system
stutters, top shows a large wa(it) value, and not much CPU usage. swappiness
is set to 10.

Any ideas? I might just get another 2G, and then the problems will be gone,
but I think this would be only a workaround. 6G should be enough already
even when using lots of applications, shouldn't it`?

BTW, I emerged and tried KDE 3.5 a week ago. Cool, things were fast
there. Probably because it needs less memory. But I don't want to go back.

Wonko

[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-performance/msg_e4365aee884ee527dc8fb82d2c725ec4.xml
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:25 AM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian
Philipp did opine thusly:

> Hi list!
>
> I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
> breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
> grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.
>
> The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
> which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at
> night.
>
> free -m
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
> -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
> Swap: 6142 978 5163
>
> A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?!
>
> Excerpt from top:
> VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 1094m 484m 10m S 0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox
> 932m 471m 15m S 0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator
> 384m 303m 2856 S 0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t
> 709m 282m 2936 S 0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices
> 839m 146m 15m S 0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin
> 191m 131m 532 S 0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon
> 902m 105m 5288 S 0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner
> 263m 105m 1724 S 0 2.8 2:31.18 squid
> 255m 61m 6672 S 7 1.6 305:04.24 X
> 1106m 55m 7756 S 0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok
> 534m 54m 10m S 0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete
> 559m 52m 6536 S 0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices
> 718m 38m 12m S 4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop
> 295m 33m 2048 S 0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld
> 360m 17m 1856 S 0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy
> 445m 16m 3392 S 0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices
> 365m 14m 6356 S 1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole
> 438m 11m 4928 S 0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4
> 508m 11m 6364 S 0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin

Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean
what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic.

The columns tell you the amount of memory that process can access. This is
vitally important to understand. Modern memory managers in all OSes have the
concept of shared code and shared memory. It would be insanely wasteful for
each process to have it's own copy of all the data in RAM it ever uses. At a
minimum, every process would need a full copy of glibc loaded into RAM.

Here's what really happens (simplistic version):

An app loads, and links to libraries it needs. They may or may not already be
in RAM; if nor, they are loaded. Those binary images increase the amount of
RAM the process may address. The app uses more RAM for it's own purposes (data
it is using) and after a while lots of that data is still in RAM but no longer
being used.

When things get tight, the kernel has a good long hard look at memory usage
and starts chucking bits away that can be dispensed with safely. How much
control do you, the user, have over this: none whatsoever. Why: because the
situation is changing millions of times a second and there's no way you can
keep up.

It's like your heart. You don't actually want to be bothered keeping the damn
thing pumping consciously. So you let your brain stem do all that heavy
lifting. With memory, the kernel is your brain stem.

Your numbers above look perfectly normal. Most of that RAM can and will be
dumped when something else comes along that needs it. The clincher is your
swap usage. After 8 days you are using only about 12% of total which indicates
the kernel is quite happily keeping everything under control and still has
plenty of wiggle room left to keep you humming along nicely.

The only point where this memory scheme goes wrong is when an app has a memory
leak - it has finished with some data in RAM and does not release it. The
chances that all your "memory hogs" all have leaks like this are very small.

Final conclusion: you have nothing to worry about.




>
> Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since
> it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does
> Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at
> the moment and is just running minimized in the background.
>
> Virtuoso looks like an optional Soprano dependency which in turn is
> needed for Nepomuk. Are the default use flags for dev-libs/soprano
> suboptimal? What happens if I choose other flags for Soprano?
>
> The rest of the list is a bit suspicious, as well. Especially DBus and
> Kopete look like they live way beyond their means (or my means ).
>
> Do other users experience the same?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Florian Philipp

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:51 AM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

On 09/18/2010 05:45 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:

Hi list!

I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at
night.

free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Swap: 6142 978 5163


That looks bad. I suspect it's the semantic desktop thingy that's at
fault (I guess it's database and indexing service must eat tons of RAM),
since I have it disabled and this is how it looks here after 5 days uptime:


total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 5973 3534 2438 0 1056 1685
-/+ buffers/cache: 793 5179
Swap: 917 0 917

(The important value is "-/+ buffers/cache: 793")

This is with KDE 4.5.1 and "semantic-desktop" USE flag disabled.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:54 AM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian
Philipp did opine thusly:


Hi list!

I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at
night.

free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Swap: 6142 978 5163
[...]


Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean
what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic.


However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and
indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his system.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 09:15 AM
Dale
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010,
Florian

Philipp did opine thusly:


Hi list!

I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
which the system was on standby most of the time during work days
and at

night.

free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Swap: 6142 978 5163
[...]


Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do
not mean

what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic.


However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and
indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his
system.




This is my free -m:

root@smoker / # free -m
total used free shared
buffers cached

Mem: 2024 1934 89 0 380 657
-/+ buffers/cache: 896 1127
Swap: 478 0 478
root@smoker / #

I have less memory installed but if I understand this correctly, I have
more trouble than he does. This install is a few years old and my rig
is several years old. It's been doing fine so far. I'm also using the
same KDE.


Currently running, KDE, Seamonkey and a nice emerge of a video package.
The compile process is using the most memory at the moment.


Dale

:-) :-)
 
Old 09-19-2010, 09:55 AM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

On 09/19/2010 12:15 PM, Dale wrote:

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010,
Florian
Philipp did opine thusly:


Hi list!

I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
which the system was on standby most of the time during work days
and at
night.

free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Swap: 6142 978 5163
[...]


Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do
not mean
what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic.


However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and
indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his
system.



This is my free -m:

root@smoker / # free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2024 1934 89 0 380 657
-/+ buffers/cache: 896 1127
Swap: 478 0 478
root@smoker / #

I have less memory installed but if I understand this correctly, I have
more trouble than he does.


Why? It reports 896MB usage vs 3271MB in Florian's system. Looks
pretty normal to me.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 10:10 AM
Dale
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

On 09/19/2010 12:15 PM, Dale wrote:

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010,
Florian
Philipp did opine thusly:


Hi list!

I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime
during

which the system was on standby most of the time during work days
and at
night.

free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Swap: 6142 978 5163
[...]


Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do
not mean
what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic.


However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and
indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his
system.



This is my free -m:

root@smoker / # free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2024 1934 89 0 380 657
-/+ buffers/cache: 896 1127
Swap: 478 0 478
root@smoker / #

I have less memory installed but if I understand this correctly, I have
more trouble than he does.


Why? It reports 896MB usage vs 3271MB in Florian's system. Looks
pretty normal to me.




I THINK I read he was up for about 8 days. I had just booted up a
little bit ago. Looking at the Mem line, I am using almost all of my
memory already. I was also keeping in mind that the OP has about double
the memory that I have. I'm just not sure what exactly is wrong with
his either. It was more of a question than anything.


He is using a lot of swap but that can be adjusted by setting the
swappiness file with a lower value IF he wants to do that. I have mine
set to 20 or so. I prefer to keep as much in memory as possible but at
the same time, I don't want to crash if say GIMP gets a little memory
hungry when I open 300 images all at once. I did that once. It took a
while. lol


I was always told that Linux uses memory a lot better than most other
OS's especially M$. Cache as much as possible and run faster which
means it will use all the memory at some point. Mine does that way and
always has. Since the kernel handles all this, I'm not sure what the
OP can do to fix anything unless it is a kernel bug. Then a upgrade may
be the sure. I guess?


Dale

:-) :-)
 
Old 09-19-2010, 10:12 AM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

Apparently, though unproven, at 10:54 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Nikos
Chantziaras did opine thusly:

> On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010,
> > Florian
> >
> > Philipp did opine thusly:
> >> Hi list!
> >>
> >> I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
> >> breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
> >> grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.
> >>
> >> The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
> >> which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at
> >> night.
> >>
> >> free -m
> >>
> >> total used free shared buffers cached
> >>
> >> Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
> >> -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
> >> Swap: 6142 978 5163
> >> [...]
> >
> > Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not
> > mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic.
>
> However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and
> indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his
> system.


What specific numbers and what appears to be out of place?



--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 09-19-2010, 10:20 AM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default KDE ridiculous memory usage

On 09/19/2010 01:12 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:

Apparently, though unproven, at 10:54 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Nikos
Chantziaras did opine thusly:


On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010,
Florian

Philipp did opine thusly:

Hi list!

I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for
breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage
grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior.

The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during
which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at
night.

free -m

total used free shared buffers cached

Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258
-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Swap: 6142 978 5163
[...]


Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not
mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic.


However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and
indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his
system.



What specific numbers and what appears to be out of place?


This:

-/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org