Re: very slow X sessions on 5.2-RC2

Quoting Kaarthik Sivakumar <kaarthik_at_comcast.net>:

> Hi folks
>
> My X sessions are quite slow on my (new) P4, 2.53Ghz machine with
> Intel Extreme Graphics (i845GV) "processor" and 256 MB RAM. I can use
> one application for sometime, but if I try to switch windows, then I
> have to wait like 1 minute for everything to redraw. This keeps on
> happening constantly, all the time and it is quite frustrating. My
> mouse movements are very jerky and I have to wait quite a while for
> any reaction from the system. I used to have an old 800 Mhz P3 with
> 384 MB ram, running 4.7-STABLE and things were quite fast on that. And
> this machine has 3x the clockspeed and a supposedly newer processor.
>
> I am beginning to wonder if this has to do with the on-board graphics
> and the amount of memory I have. Intel's website on this chipset says
> that this graphics chipset uses shared memory (ie from main memory)
> and it can use 64MB if the main memory is more than 128M. In the BIOS
> though, I see an option that says allocate 8MB for graphics (This is a
> DELL 2400, in case it helps). I am not sure which one is really
> correct here and how much memory is being "shared" for the graphics. I
> am assuming that 5.2-RC2 (yes, I have to upgrade) is faster than what
> I see here.
>
> The kernel is quite similar to GENERIC, except that practically all
> SCSI and wi stuff is out. I am not using ULE or KSE or anything. Just
> whatever was default with 5.2-RC2. I am also running KDE 3.2. I know
> that my machine itself can do run quite fast, as is evident when I
> compile ports. I have never compiled 150 ports in such a short time
> before. It only seems like the graphics part is sooo slow. Maybe I
> should just get more memory, but I would like to confirm that that is
> the case.
>
> In case it helps, these are outputs from 'top' at various times. If
> any other information is needed, like dmesg output, I can attach them.
> Thanks.
>
> last pid: 57677;  load averages:  0.79,  0.31,  0.12          up 
> 9+22:42:48  00:06:35
> 79 processes:  2 running, 67 sleeping, 10 zombie
> CPU states:  6.2% user,  0.0% nice,  7.4% system, 66.7% interrupt, 19.8% idle
> Mem: 137M Active, 38M Inact, 56M Wired, 14M Cache, 35M Buf, 652K Free
> Swap: 1024M Total, 181M Used, 843M Free, 17% Inuse
>
> last pid: 57677;  load averages:  1.18,  0.45,  0.18          up 
> 9+22:43:13  00:07:00
> 79 processes:  2 running, 67 sleeping, 10 zombie
> CPU states:  6.2% user,  0.0% nice,  8.1% system, 35.3% interrupt, 50.4% idle
> Mem: 137M Active, 37M Inact, 56M Wired, 15M Cache, 35M Buf, 652K Free
> Swap: 1024M Total, 181M Used, 843M Free, 17% Inuse
>
> last pid: 80748;  load averages:  0.03,  0.17,  0.13                  
>   up 31+22:19:24  23:43:11
> 81 processes:  3 running, 66 sleeping, 12 zombie
> CPU states: 14.5% user,  0.0% nice,  3.4% system,  0.3% interrupt, 81.8% idle
> Mem: 133M Active, 19M Inact, 84M Wired, 8880K Cache, 35M Buf, 656K Free
> Swap: 1024M Total, 274M Used, 749M Free, 26% Inuse
>
> last pid: 62836;  load averages:  0.42,  0.32,  0.23                  
>   up 35+22:30:09  23:53:56
> 101 processes: 5 running, 67 sleeping, 1 stopped, 28 zombie
> CPU states: 50.1% user,  0.0% nice,  6.9% system,  0.8% interrupt, 42.2% idle
> Mem: 142M Active, 9928K Inact, 84M Wired, 9748K Cache, 35M Buf, 656K Free
> Swap: 1024M Total, 328M Used, 696M Free, 32% Inuse
>
> kaarthik
>
I'm not sure, but it's possible that you're using X's VESA driver which means
you're getting unaccelerated 2d. That would surely slow you down quite a bit,
although I'm not sure as much as you're seeing.

Ken