New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 866050 link

Starred by 1 user
Status: Duplicate
Owner: ----
Closed: Jul 23
Cc:
rbasuvula@chromium.org
phanindra.mandapaka@chromium.org
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Linux , Windows , Mac
Pri: 2
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment

GPU Process work not attributable to source tab

Project Member Reported by onet@google.com, Jul 20 
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Open Task Manager
2. Select GPU Process

What is the expected behavior?
Show which tabs are contributing to GPU Process

What went wrong?
With the growing use of hardware acceleration in Chrome the percentage of both CPU and Memory attributed continues to grow. However, the task manager does not provide a way to attribute this back to what tab is causing the usage.

This has significant negative impact when a specific tab causes several GB of GPU Process Usage. There is currently no way easily figure out which tab is causing it so that the tab can be closed. In effect chrome regressed to pre-task manager days where users have to keep closing tabs to figure out what tab is using so many resources.

Did this work before? No 

Chrome version: 67.0.3396.99  Channel: stable
OS Version: 
Flash Version:

Comment 1 by krajshree@chromium.org, Jul 22

Labels: Needs-Triage-M67

Comment 2 by phanindra.mandapaka@chromium.org, Jul 23

Cc: phanindra.mandapaka@chromium.org
Labels: Triaged-ET Target-70 M-70 FoundIn-70 OS-Mac OS-Windows
Status: Untriaged (was: Unconfirmed)
Able to reproduce the issue on reported chromium version 67.0.3396.99 also on latest chrome 70.0.3500.0 using Ubuntu 17.10, Mac 10.13.5 and Windows 10.  

Same behavior is seen on M60(60.0.3112.113) hence considering it as non-regression and marking it as Untriaged.

Thanks!

Comment 3 by rbasuvula@chromium.org, Jul 23

Cc: rbasuvula@chromium.org
Mergedinto: 866059
Status: Duplicate (was: Untriaged)
Seems this issue is similar to issue #866059. Hence merging this issue with 866059.

Please undo if this is not similar.

Thanks.
►

Sign in to add a comment