Closed Bug 634894 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Very high CPU usage for plugin process

Categories

(Core Graveyard :: Plug-ins, defect)

Product:
Core Graveyard
Component:
Plug-ins
Platform:
x86
macOS
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED INVALID

People

(Reporter: rvjanc, Unassigned)

References

(
URL
)

Details

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:2.0b11) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b11 Build Identifier: Minefield 4.0b12pre downloaded 2011-02-16 For the Superbowl vid's http://www.youtube.com/adblitz selecting the Bud commercial bin ~20% plugin ~95% Also the second post in this thread http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2096621&start=0 of a WIN USER using FF4b12pre on 07 Feb 2011 says No problem here. plugin-container: 2-4% CPU Usage for the Superbowl vids. The plugin for the Superbowl uses FF4 on OSX ~95% Chrome on OSX ~4% FF4 on Win ~4% About 20x more CPU usage for FF4 on OSX on that particular site. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Activate Activity Monitor 2. Launch FF4 3. Go to http://www.youtube.com/adblitz 4. Run any vid, plugin process will run 95%+ usage OSX 10.6.6 GHz Mac Pro Quad Core Intel Xeon 5500 “Nehalem” with 8G RAM with flash 10.2 final.
Does about:support say you are using hardware accel or not? I suppose you filed this separately because bug 691687 is already supposedly fixed? Bug 634521 did not land until yesterday and will only be in today's nightly, so we'll need to retest there.
On today's build on a new-ish MBP, I see plugin-container at 105% and firefox at 15% with acceleration enabled. With acceleration disabled, it's 105/25.
Benjamin, Boris Zbarsky told me to file this as a separate bug from 591687 and CC him. Wanted to get it done before I head out of town for 1 1/2 days. Will check Friday PM on status.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
User littlemutt reported highusage with Windows 7 64 bit http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2096621&start=30 I am getting 34% windowed, 68% full screen with Windows 7 32 bit on all browsers, maybe it is actually CPU or GPU related whether you get the high usage or not, not OS specific?
Here is a summary FF4 on OSX ~95% (my test using Minefield 4.0b12pre 2011-02-16) Chrome on OSX ~4% (my test using Chrome 9.0.597.102) FF4 on Win ~4% (Theliel's test here: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2096621&p=10399013#p10399013) I know that Chrome runs about 4% on the Superbowl page since I did the test and just repeated it and I know Minefield runs ~95% since I did the test and just repeated it. Since I have no access to Win I had to rely on Theliel's report. In any event the fact that Chrome is ~4% and Minefield is ~95% on OSX for the plugin process is an ISSUE. Even if Win is really ~35% windowed, Chrome is ~4% windowed. I have no technical idea why, I just see this huge difference. Perhaps we need some Moz folks to test Minefield on Win for the process container on the Superbowl site to verify what Theliel reported. Would be good to have a number of tests with Minefield build, windowed, OS and HW reported.
We need someone to investigate the Flash process in FF and Chrome to see why Flash is behaving so differently. I can only assume that Flash is using different rendering paths for some reason ... perhaps H.264 hardware decoding for Chrome but not for us?
Note the page has changed somewhat now the voting has finished, you need to click 'View all commercials' in the top right to see the problem. With Iron(Chrome) 9 on Windows 7 32 bit I am getting the same high CPU usage with the 'View all commercials' page, 34% CPU playing a video windowed and 68% CPU when viewing full screen, just having the multi video mosaic on screen will also use 34%, if I scroll down so it is not visible CPU usage drops.
I just tried the steps from comment 0: 1) Load the url 2) Select "View All Commercials" over on the right 3) Select "Sort by Advertiser" 4) Select "Budweiser" (not "Bud Light"). If I do that with Chrome 11 dev (11.0.672.2), I see it using just as much CPU as we do: the "Shockwave Flash (Chrome Plug-In Host)" process uses nearly 100% of a core (with forays up to 110%). This is on OSX 10.6, on a mid-2010 macbook pro, if that matters. I also see the same 100% CPU usage in Chrome 10 beta (10.0.648.114). I also see the same 100% CPU usage in Chrome 9 (9.0.597.102). Robert, one interesting question here. What Flash version does about:plugins list for you Chrome 9? Is it the same as what Firefox lists in about:plugins?
(In reply to comment #8) > I just tried the steps from comment 0: > > 1) Load the url > 2) Select "View All Commercials" over on the right > 3) Select "Sort by Advertiser" > 4) Select "Budweiser" (not "Bud Light"). > > If I do that with Chrome 11 dev (11.0.672.2), I see it using just as much CPU > as we do: the "Shockwave Flash (Chrome Plug-In Host)" process uses nearly 100% > of a core (with forays up to 110%). This is on OSX 10.6, on a mid-2010 macbook > pro, if that matters. > > I also see the same 100% CPU usage in Chrome 10 beta (10.0.648.114). > > I also see the same 100% CPU usage in Chrome 9 (9.0.597.102). > > Robert, one interesting question here. What Flash version does about:plugins > list for you Chrome 9? Is it the same as what Firefox lists in about:plugins? For Chrome 9.0.597.102 Flash (2 files) Version: 10.2.154.13 Shockwave Flash 10.2 r154 For FF4b12 Flash Player.plugin Version: 10.2.152.26 Shockwave Flash 10.2 r152 Not sure why they are different. When I go to /Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Flash Player.plugin and get info I see Adobe Flash Player 10.2 r152 I can't find the 10.2 r154 plug-in, I have no plug-ins in /Users/<user_acct>/Library/Internet Plug-Ins ???
(In reply to comment #8) > Robert, one interesting question here. What Flash version does about:plugins > list for you Chrome 9? Is it the same as what Firefox lists in about:plugins? For some reason Chrome seems to have a slightly newer release than FF or IE, see http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
Just did an experiment. I removed EVERYTHING from /Users/<user_acct>/Library/Internet Plug-Ins I then launched FF and as expected - no flash plug-in When I launched Chrome - the plug-in IS THERE I have an app called HoudahSpot which allows me to search my entire HD including system files and invisible files. No flash plug-in anywhere. So, is the flash used by chrome built in or given some other name and in some other directory? Note that on the Adobe site for Mac downloads, it says Adobe Flash Player version 10.2.152.26 Universal Binary for Macs | 5.54 MB Browser: Safari, Firefox, Opera There is no mention of Chrome. Sounds like Google may be bundling the flash player with the browser.
Just went to the Adobe site using Chrome and found this Your Google Chrome browser already includes Adobe® Flash® Player built-in. Google Chrome will automatically update when new versions of Flash Player are available. Very interesting.
Yeah, Chrome ships flash as part of their install; the plug-in lives in the Chrome app bundle. Robert's Flash versions match the ones I have. So I don't understand why he's seeing 4% CPU usage for Chrome's plugin-container proces while I see 100% on the same content...
Just redid the test CHROME showing all commercials pane Process Name %CPU Threads Real Mem Kind Virtual Mem Google Chrome .7 19 42.5 MB Intel 185.6MB Google Chrome Renderer .5 4 61.3 MB Intel 117.5MB CHROME showing Budweiser Process Name %CPU Threads Real Mem Kind Virtual Mem Google Chrome 2.6 19 48.2 MB Intel 180.6MB Google Chrome Renderer 1.4 5 60.4 MB Intel 111.5MB FF4b12 showing all commercials pane Process Name %CPU Threads Real Mem Kind Virtual Mem Firefox 7.2 25 262.5 MB Intel (64 bit) 271.2MB Firefox Plugin Process 106.4 13 73.5 MB Intel 139.1MB FF4b12 showing Budweiser Process Name %CPU Threads Real Mem Kind Virtual Mem Firefox 13.8 25 263.9 MB Intel (64 bit) 271.2MB Firefox Plugin Process 105.0 18 97.5 MB Intel 98.5 MB I have a Pro Mac OSX 10.6.6 Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 “Nehalem” with 8G RAM purchased in 2009.
Uh... For Chrome there should be _three_ relevant processes. "Google Chrome", "Google Chrome Renderer", and "Shockwave Flash (Chrome Plug-In Host)". The first of those is the UI, the second is the webpage, and the third is the process the plug-in is running in. Could you please post the information on all three?
Right you are AND, Shockwave Flash (Chrome Plug-In Host) is running above 100%. Sorry about the confusion. I changed the status to RESOLVED INVALID.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.