Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <81E27E9B-BD4B-4429-BF91-FED3505CE6D0@ceptacle.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:02:46 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3428A99D-3E68-4E06-9DD1-83741C9CDD42@ceptacle.com>
References: <81E27E9B-BD4B-4429-BF91-FED3505CE6D0@ceptacle.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BitcoinQt eating 100% CPU
Precedence: list

A follow up on my mail from the other day (got it send from the wrong =
email address...)

I now exit the ipc thread at startup by inserting:

void ipcThread(void* parg)
{
   ipcShutdown();
   return;

Bitcoin-Qt is now running nicely using around 0.9% CPU. So it seems like =
the culprit was indeed line 31:

if(mq->timed_receive(&strBuf, sizeof(strBuf), nSize, nPriority, d))

Others, who have seen similar issues ?

Cheers,

M=20

On 21/02/2012, at 21:33, Michael Gr=F8nager wrote:

> Hi Wladimir / others,
>=20
> I just downloaded the latest (0.6 rc1) source of bitcoin-qt and built =
it using qt-creator on MacOSX 10.7.3. Nice and easy experience, even =
though I had to change BDB version to 5.1 ;)
>=20
> However, when running it, it is using 100% CPU (after initial block =
chain download that is...)
> * All activity in debug.log seems normal (blocks/txes/addresses are =
processes and accepted etc) so it is not stuck (at least not in the =
MessageThread)
> * Sampling the process shows that the majority of time in each thread =
is used for:
> ** __semwait_signal
> ** kevent
> ** __select
> ** mach_msg_trap
> ** boost::date_time::micro_sec_clock
>=20
> None of this would usually alert me - sleeping and waiting for =
conditions should not consume CPU, the only issue seems to be the last =
line which is called from qtipcserver.cpp line 31:
>=20
>      if(mq->timed_receive(&strBuf, sizeof(strBuf), nSize, nPriority, =
d))
>=20
> As I see it this should not consume cpu either, but, it is the only =
thing that seems a bit strange..
>=20
> Have you seen this before?
>=20
> /M