X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

.:B:. · 2007-09-16 17:37:34

First off, I didn't know where to put it, so feel free to move it.

I recently got a new laptop - HP 6510b (T7300, 2 GB RAM, X3100 onboard Intel GPU). Installed Arch on it, like on my other boxen. However, memory usage jumps through the roof once i run XFCE. I grabbed Xorg 7.3 from testing since that one has the Intel driver (xf86-video-intel) for my GPU.

Some stats:

Memory usage in runlevel 3:

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2019         48       1970          0          4         19
-/+ buffers/cache:         25       1993
Swap:          282          0        282

Memory usage in runlevel 5 (logged in to XFCE, empty desktop, except for aDesklets and Conky):

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2019        190       1828          0          7         53
-/+ buffers/cache:        129       1890
Swap:          282          0        282

Usually I boot into XFCE using 60 MB RAM with a similar configuration (even heavier, since I haven't got all the services running yet as I do normally - CUPS etc.). Now, that is obviously not the case. As mentioned above I have 2 GB of RAM, of which the onboard GPU should take max. 256 MB. Free does not seem to show that if I am correct (on my old laptop I could see 800+ MB of RAM, because 128 MB was reserved for the ATi GPU). Is this normal?

If I run htop and sort on memory usage I see X + XFCE using more memory than usual (60 MB total, without aDesklets & Conky). Normally the graphical layer only adds like 40 MB more (if not less, since it used to be 60 MB).

This is a screenshot of the memory-sorted active applications

Does anyone have any pointers, or experience similar behaviour with Xorg 7.3?

Last edited by B (2007-09-16 18:28:57)

shining · 2007-09-16 19:01:05

1828 MB free, what a waste

ks1 · 2007-09-17 00:22:44

You can always install gnome or KDE and use up some more of that free ram

My guess is the shared memory graphics card...

.:B:. · 2007-09-17 00:35:31

Come on guys - I want some serious answers. It's not about what's left, it's about what's used now, which is nearly doubled in comparison with my old (identical) setup.

shining wrote:

1828 MB free, what a waste

If you don't have constructive input: please refrain, thank you .

.:B:. · 2007-09-17 14:27:38

Ok... I have a clue. If I use the VESA driver instead of the Intel one (xf86-video-intel), after login XFCE uses a mere 46 MB. The Intel driver seems to be quite a memory hog?

Cerebral · 2007-09-17 14:44:21

B wrote:

Ok... I have a clue. If I use the VESA driver instead of the Intel one (xf86-video-intel), after login XFCE uses a mere 46 MB. The Intel driver seems to be quite a memory hog?

Probably - I'd imagine the intel drivers support far more, graphically, than the VESA driver.

If it reserves enough memory for the entire screen, then consider:

Width X Height X Depth

For example, if your screen is 1024 x 768 with 24bpp, then that'd occupy about 18-19MB of memory.
If your screen is 1280x1024 with 24bpp, that'd occupy about 31-32MB of memory.

If the intel drivers do double-buffering, then you'd need twice that amount. Then it might need even more for additional effects.

Admittedly, this is more speculation than anything as I don't know the internals, but it's a reasonable explanation. I do know for a fact that the VESA drivers are lowest-common-denominator kind of drivers, they really don't support much in the way of anything.

.:B:. · 2007-09-17 15:13:16

Thanks cerebral .

I have a 1440x900 resolution, Xorg was running with 16bit colour depth up till now, it seems. I will fiddle a bit to see if i can 'minimize' the memory usage.

What 'surprises' me is that the FOSS ATi driver on my previous laptop (1280x800), consumed a lot less memory for a similar setup.

Cerebral · 2007-09-17 15:16:30

B wrote:

I have a 1440x900 resolution, Xorg was running with 16bit colour depth up till now, it seems.

That would take about 20-21MB per buffer by my previous calculations - 40-42MB for double-buffering.

If, for kicks, you reduced your rez or depth temporarily, do you see the memory usage drop? That would verify the theory anyway.

.:B:. · 2007-09-17 15:31:26

I think I just verified your theory the other way .

I upped the colour depth to 24 bit, and now when I login memory usage is close to 140 MB.

shining · 2007-09-17 15:34:29

B wrote:

Thanks cerebral .
I have a 1440x900 resolution, Xorg was running with 16bit colour depth up till now, it seems. I will fiddle a bit to see if i can 'minimize' the memory usage.
What 'surprises' me is that the FOSS ATi driver on my previous laptop (1280x800), consumed a lot less memory for a similar setup.

Like 1.27x less?

Anyway, why do you want to 'minimize' the memory usage? Do you actually fill the 2 GB when using your laptop, and it swaps heavily?
Or is it only by curiosity? In this case, I am also curious if you can validate Cerebral's theory

Edit : just read your new message. but you could maybe try using 1280x800x16 for comparing to your previous laptop.

Last edited by shining (2007-09-17 15:36:17)

.:B:. · 2007-09-17 15:41:31

I was just wondering where the big difference came from. If it has to do with the inner workings of the driver, I'm afraid I can't do anything about then. I know I got plenty of RAM, I'm just a bit obsessed with stuff lingering around for nothing (bloat, you know ), and I suspected that might be the case here, which is not so, apparently .

Shining: I used to think one of the great advantages of Linux was that, with a slim environment, it could be very light on resources (especially RAM). At this moment the difference with a stripped XP is not that big anymore . Memory usage on an onboard ATi GPU, 1280x800, 16bit was 60 MB. I suppose that was with 24 bit colour depth too (it was not set explicitly in Xorg.conf but after defining it & restarting X RAM usage was the same).

I'd like to point out also there is nowhere in the BIOS i can set the amount of memory allocated to the X3100. It can have up to 384 MB according to Intel's docs, but I still got the full 2 GB RAM according to free. And the GPU has to get his memory in some way...

Last edited by B (2007-09-17 15:51:30)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-09-16 17:37:34

X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#2 2007-09-16 19:01:05

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#3 2007-09-17 00:22:44

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#4 2007-09-17 00:35:31

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#5 2007-09-17 14:27:38

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#6 2007-09-17 14:44:21

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#7 2007-09-17 15:13:16

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#8 2007-09-17 15:16:30

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#9 2007-09-17 15:31:26

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#10 2007-09-17 15:34:29

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

#11 2007-09-17 15:41:31

Re: X + XFCE using a lot of RAM (Xorg 7.3 from testing)

Board footer