From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 30 19:11:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F12A106566B for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:11:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-px0-f190.google.com (mail-px0-f190.google.com [209.85.216.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15658FC1B for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:11:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pxi28 with SMTP id 28so2054403pxi.7 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CnvH6yVDI3l0fCj4llsOUDolsQs28cc/6UrkztsFh8Y=; b=sTKcVjhlMUX1hl0+Pn+eoMPKSuqDIIDO5+VuG+D0v42bJYFitEJmR1BSCwoaXPBm4/ 6iJLXeI7yZOPQyip/lL/qT90E7ts/Q13WyFujJTBpYxyqlcQFyBpUkKEUM0sEa6A0J/M U4+86sx9cxEnN9vzDMejpLxQ0eHIULj1xEAHY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=SGZuRsPGxx/jEYfBzrsZPr9buf31KvBUly6eSXie5Fp3l+NuSQEJr11bhM0LWNfVN4 1JFzMJmgbCj3aRZRP0KEHQsaUrII9xjKwZuVyHsyb7VOgEm6Soc3zlJTtEF0WVChM88s h/dRyH+0SleM5cV4qgVkML9NVcflC3ulYIUXo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.9.37 with SMTP id 37mr195353wfi.116.1256929866436; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <370279.86430.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <6201873e0910300904v5767894bkec0e7543e28aa951@mail.gmail.com> <6201873e0910301053s77147e9dlfcd631f3385fa58a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:11:06 -0500 Message-ID: <6201873e0910301211s4c4714f2w433407f458d458fa@mail.gmail.com> From: Adam Vande More To: Neal Hogan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Freminlins , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Effing HAL X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:11:07 -0000 I was part of this and the x11 mailing list during the period in which most made the switch to hal. I am fully aware of all the complaining which occurred. There was a bug which made the issue difficult. I experienced it, the workaround was available nearly immediately and fixed soon after. Nearly of the complaints were due to that bug, or misconfiguration just as you are experiencing. The bug was basically moused and hal fighting over who was polling the mouse while X was running. top is a horrible method of measuring memory usage by a process. procstat(1) will give you a much better picture, I suggest you challenge your assumptions and explore that path. However since you asked here is the diff. w/ HAL: CPU: 0.2% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.8% idle Mem: 66M Active, 43M Inact, 95M Wired, 776K Cache, 48M Buf, 1789M Free Swap: 4063M Total, 4063M Free /usr/local/etc/rc.d/hald stop had no discernible effect on usage. reboot after hald_enable="NO" in /etc/rc.conf CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle Mem: 62M Active, 43M Inact, 93M Wired, 660K Cache, 47M Buf, 1795M Free Swap: 4063M Total, 4063M Free -- Adam Vande More