Bug 279583

Summary: Simple progress bar makes xorg consume 8% CPU of a 2.1 GHz dual core
Product: [Plasma] Oxygen Reporter: S. Burmeister <sven.burmeister>
Component: win decoAssignee: Unassigned bugs mailing-list <unassigned-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE    
Severity: normal CC: andresbajotierra, cfeck, kdepim-bugs
Priority: NOR    
Version: unspecified   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: openSUSE   
OS: Linux   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed In:

Description S. Burmeister 2011-08-07 11:12:52 UTC
Version:           unspecified (using KDE 4.7.0) 
OS:                Linux

Assuming that kmail uses the "general" KDE progress bar this is a KDE issue. If it's a kmail2 issue, please re-assign.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
- Check xorg's cpu consumption

- Open kmail2 and watch the bottom-right corner of the app, i.e. the status bar.
- Make kmail2 perform several tasks at once in order to not get the x% progress bar but a simple little rectangle moving from side to side.

- Check xorg's CPU consumption while the rectangle is moving

Actual Results:  
Xorg consumes 8% of a 2.1 GHz dual core CPU just for a tiny little rectangle moving from side to side.

Expected Results:  
Hardly any cpu consumption for such a trivial animation.

There were issues in digikam with it using paint() for the "progress circles", i.e. those dots turning. Maybe this issue is also due to using not well performing painting methods.
Comment 1 Christophe Marin 2011-08-07 22:45:38 UTC
worksforme. No particular Xorg usage when syncing messages while filtering and changing folder
Comment 2 S. Burmeister 2011-08-07 23:00:06 UTC
What do you mean by particular? It would be strange if changing a folder, i.e. displaying a new message list would not result in some percentage regarding Xorg.

Do you use the default theme/windeco?
Comment 3 Christoph Feck 2011-08-08 00:04:45 UTC
See also bug 275061.
Comment 4 Christophe Marin 2011-08-08 08:01:29 UTC
That could explain, indeed. I don't use the oxygen decorations
Comment 5 S. Burmeister 2012-06-07 11:59:29 UTC
So this might then be an oxygen issue.
Comment 6 Christoph Feck 2012-06-07 12:22:03 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 275061 ***