[nvidia] Xorg suddenly starts to consume 100% CPU, apparently triggered by Chrome

[teo1978]

I navigated to a website in Chrome (linledIn.com) and both Chrome and Xorg started consuming around 100% CPU each (one was actually significantly above 100% but I can't remember which one).

Then I closed Chrome entirely (and I check there was no Chrome process left), but Xorg kept consuming around 100% CPU. No other process was.

I closed all applications I had opened, but nothing stopped Xorg from consuming around 100% CPU while nobody was doing nothing. I had to kill Xorg.

It might have been a complete coincidence that Xorg's crazy CPU usage started when I opened that website in Chrome, or it might actually have been caused by it, even by a bug in Chrome. But even if that is the case, if an application can cause Xorg to consume 100% CPU and then not stop even after the application has been closed, that is a bug in Xorg.

Also, something quite similar happens to me very often:
sometimes I open Google Maps in Chrome and (not every time, far from it), the same as described above happens, that is, both Chrome and Xorg start consuming a lot of CPU. However, in those cases, usually when I close Chrome, Xorg's CPU consumptions goes back to normal (and then I'm able to reopen Chrome and everything works normally).
This was the first time that Xorg's abnormal CPU consumption persisted after closing Chrome which seemed to have triggered it.

I'm not sure whether the two cases are actually caused by the same issue or not.

I know I'm providing little information but this is all I have.

Note that the issue is critical.

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 16.04
Package: xorg 1:7.7+13ubuntu3
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 4.4.0-116.140-generic 4.4.98
Uname: Linux 4.4.0-116-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia_uvm nvidia
.proc.driver.nvidia.gpus.0000.01.00.0: Error: [Errno 21] Is a directory: '/proc/driver/nvidia/gpus/0000:01:00.0'
.proc.driver.nvidia.registry: Binary: ""
.proc.driver.nvidia.version:
 NVRM version: NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 340.104 Thu Sep 14 17:13:13 PDT 2017
 GCC version: gcc version 5.4.0 20160609 (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9)
.tmp.unity_support_test.0:

ApportVersion: 2.20.1-0ubuntu2.15
Architecture: amd64
CompizPlugins: No value set for `/apps/compiz-1/general/screen0/options/active_plugins'
CompositorRunning: compiz
CompositorUnredirectDriverBlacklist: '(nouveau|Intel).*Mesa 8.0'
CompositorUnredirectFSW: true
CurrentDesktop: Unity
Date: Thu Mar 29 00:50:20 2018
DistUpgraded: Fresh install
DistroCodename: xenial
DistroVariant: ubuntu
ExtraDebuggingInterest: Yes, if not too technical
GraphicsCard:
 Intel Corporation 3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller [8086:0166] (rev 09) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
   Subsystem: Acer Incorporated [ALI] 3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller [1025:0647]
 NVIDIA Corporation GF117M [GeForce 610M/710M/810M/820M / GT 620M/625M/630M/720M] [10de:1140] (rev a1) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
   Subsystem: Acer Incorporated [ALI] GeForce 710M [1025:0691]
InstallationDate: Installed on 2013-10-11 (1629 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 13.04 "Raring Ringtail" - Release amd64 (20130424)
MachineType: Acer Aspire V3-571G
ProcKernelCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-4.4.0-116-generic.efi.signed root=UUID=5830b30e-69e8-4bb4-8a2b-bc2b43c7414a ro quiet splash vt.handoff=7
SourcePackage: xorg
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
dmi.bios.date: 10/15/2012
dmi.bios.vendor: Acer
dmi.bios.version: V2.07
dmi.board.asset.tag: Type2 - Board Asset Tag
dmi.board.name: VA50_HC_CR
dmi.board.vendor: Acer
dmi.board.version: Type2 - Board Version
dmi.chassis.type: 10
dmi.chassis.vendor: Acer
dmi.chassis.version: V2.07
dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnAcer:bvrV2.07:bd10/15/2012:svnAcer:pnAspireV3-571G:pvrV2.07:rvnAcer:rnVA50_HC_CR:rvrType2-BoardVersion:cvnAcer:ct10:cvrV2.07:
dmi.product.name: Aspire V3-571G
dmi.product.version: V2.07
dmi.sys.vendor: Acer
version.compiz: compiz 1:0.9.12.3+16.04.20180221-0ubuntu1
version.ia32-libs: ia32-libs N/A
version.libdrm2: libdrm2 2.4.83-1~16.04.1
version.libgl1-mesa-dri: libgl1-mesa-dri 17.2.8-0ubuntu0~16.04.1
version.libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental: libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental N/A
version.libgl1-mesa-glx: libgl1-mesa-glx 17.2.8-0ubuntu0~16.04.1
version.nvidia-graphics-drivers: nvidia-graphics-drivers-* N/A
version.xserver-xorg-core: xserver-xorg-core 2:1.18.4-0ubuntu0.7
version.xserver-xorg-input-evdev: xserver-xorg-input-evdev 1:2.10.1-1ubuntu2
version.xserver-xorg-video-ati: xserver-xorg-video-ati 1:7.7.0-1
version.xserver-xorg-video-intel: xserver-xorg-video-intel 2:2.99.917+git20160325-1ubuntu1.2
version.xserver-xorg-video-nouveau: xserver-xorg-video-nouveau 1:1.0.12-1build2
xserver.bootTime: Thu Mar 29 00:45:01 2018
xserver.configfile: /etc/X11/xorg.conf
xserver.errors:
 NVIDIA(0): Failed to initiate mode change.
 NVIDIA(0): Failed to complete mode change
xserver.logfile: /var/log/Xorg.0.log
xserver.version: 2:1.18.4-0ubuntu0.7

[Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt)]

It looks like using Nvidia on this laptop is optional. I wonder; can you please uninstall the Nvidia driver and then tell us if the problem still occurs?

If so, then please run:

  dpkg -l > allpackages.txt

and attach the resulting file 'allpackages.txt'.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for xorg-server (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

[teo1978 (teo8976)]

Just because using Nvidia is "optional" and I don't have time to waste trying uninstalling it, doesn't mean this bug should expire.

By the way, when you say "using Nvidia on this laptop is optional" do you mean actually using the Nvidia GPU is (no shit!) or that I can uninstall the nvidia drivers and still be using the NVidia GPU fully??

[Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt)]

Yes, I meant the laptop is usable with only the Intel GPU. Although graphics performance will be lower obviously.

Please follow the steps in comment #2 if you would like any help. If you don't have time then no problem, just let the bug expire.

[teo1978 (teo8976)]

> Please follow the steps in comment #2 if you would like any help.
> If you don't have time then no problem, just let the bug expire.

The very idea of bugs expiring because the OP doesn't provide any given piece of information is stupid. I'm always puzzled at how it's such a common practice in bug trackers. It makes no sense to close a bug unless it's either fixed or found to be invalid. What's the point in waiting for other people to stumble on the same bug and report it again and again?

Also you're demanding an unreasonable amount of work on the side of the reporter (yes, I know, you're not "demanding" anything strictly speaking, but I mean expecting it to be done by the reporter rather than by the developers or triagers): to uninstall a driver and test whether the bug is still present in a completely different configuration. Whatever the answer is, the bug exists and isn't any less of a bug: the test would serve the purpose of TRIAGING the bug, which is not something that can reasonably be expected to be done by the user. Now, of course it never hurts to ask the reporter to try something, but putting the bug in "incomplete" status (which implies it expiring if the original poster doesn't do that) is wrong.

That's like closing a bug because it's too difficult to fix (note that difficult to reproduce just mean difficult to investigate which in turn means difficult to fix: that does not make it any less of an issue or mean it's any less severe; if anything it means it needs more attention, not less). Actually that's exactly what it is, and it is done a lot, which is what frustrates me (and part of the reason why Ubuntu is so buggy).

[Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt)]

Ubuntu is a community project. Although I do work for Canonical I am not required to answer Xorg bugs like this. I am volunteering my time.

Also keep in mind that you like most people are probably not paying for support. To make the whole Ubuntu project work we rely on everyone, including reporters of bugs, to do a little work.

If a bug is common and being discussed by many users then the individual really doesn't have to do anything. In cases like that you can rely on others to probably do the work. But for bugs like this affecting only one person then some responsibility has to be on you to help us understand better what's happening on your machine.

Certainly this is too much effort for many people. And I understand that - sometimes I don't report bugs myself, for this reason.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for xorg-server (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]