Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Glances CPU consumption of version 3.4.0_RC1 is higher (~ 30 %) than 3.3.1 #2390

Closed
nicolargo opened this issue May 13, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #2396
Closed

Glances CPU consumption of version 3.4.0_RC1 is higher (~ 30 %) than 3.3.1 #2390

nicolargo opened this issue May 13, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #2396

Comments

@nicolargo
Copy link
Owner

3 3 4vs3 3 1

Profiling (flame) should be done to identify the issue.

@nicolargo
Copy link
Owner Author

nicolargo commented May 13, 2023

Glances flame profiling for Glances 3.3.1:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nicolargo/glances/v3.3.1.1/docs/_static/glances-flame.svg

Glances flame profiling for Glances 3.4.0-RC1:

glances-3 4 0_RC1

@nicolargo
Copy link
Owner Author

nicolargo commented May 13, 2023

Seems to be related to the Docker Plugin (focus on the flame profiling):

podmanhightcpu

@nicolargo
Copy link
Owner Author

@RazCrimson do you think that it is related to the temporary patch to get Podman lib work ?

@RazCrimson
Copy link
Collaborator

@nicolargo

Yea, it's probably that as the hacky generator is a bit greedy for the CPU.

Let me try to make a small fix on this.

RazCrimson added a commit that referenced this issue May 13, 2023
@RazCrimson
Copy link
Collaborator

@nicolargo
Could you give https://github.com/nicolargo/glances/tree/issue2390 a try?

It's again a bit of a hacky solution, but it should ease the CPU usage.

@nicolargo
Copy link
Owner Author

It looks better ! CPU consumption more or less the same than Glances 3.3.1 :)

@nicolargo
Copy link
Owner Author

You can merge to develop.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants