Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#46804 - [mate-system-monitor] showing wrong (too high) memory usage
Attached to Project:
Community Packages
Opened by Andy (a7arch) - Tuesday, 20 October 2015, 04:14 GMT
Last edited by Martin Wimpress (flexiondotorg) - Friday, 06 November 2015, 20:51 GMT
Opened by Andy (a7arch) - Tuesday, 20 October 2015, 04:14 GMT
Last edited by Martin Wimpress (flexiondotorg) - Friday, 06 November 2015, 20:51 GMT
|
DetailsI hope this is not duplicated again... ;-) searched, but did't found a bug report for this.
After the last Update (2015-10-20), the memory usage displayed in "mate-system-monitor" is much too high! e.g. PROCESS MEMORY bash 3,1 GiB caja 3,6 GiB gvfs-smb 260,1 MiB ...and so on Tested this with a second, new installed system (in VirtualBox), with same results: After update, the memory usage shown in "mate-system-monitor" is wrong! In other tool (top,htop) the memory usage is displayed correct. Current kernel: 4.1.10-1-MANJARO i686 Current "mate" version: 1.10.2 Current "mate-system-monitor": 1.10.1 My system has 1,5 GB RAM... VirtualBox 512MB RAM For more please see attachements (picture: before - after) |
This task depends upon
Closed by Martin Wimpress (flexiondotorg)
Friday, 06 November 2015, 20:51 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Friday, 06 November 2015, 20:51 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
mate-system-monitor_wrong_mem...
What is interesting, this bug affects only these processes which are owned by the user who launched mate-system-monitor (see screenshot).
That said, I tried digging into it, but the problem went away after I rebuilt the package. It might be a CXXFLAGS issue or something.