From xemacs-m  Fri Jan 17 14:26:51 1997
Received: from cs.uchicago.edu (alexandria.cs.uchicago.edu [128.135.11.87])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id OAA04183 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:26:51 -0600 (CST)
Received: from gargoyle164.cs.uchicago.edu (gargoyle20 [128.135.20.100]) by cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA29973 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:26:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from csdayton@localhost) by gargoyle164.cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.3/8.7.3) id OAA19861; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:26:49 -0600 (CST)
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Xemacs taking up a lot of cycles while `idle'
References: <12215.853396330@alexandria11> <m2d8v4hoou.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Face: `X="Sg7A[PL3/_8;>>ggjOy&\KtWiH7.wQ>Y"hQ2fxSG9RkPTCT}&^()5[Gp(-DaTf:t`MSBt@Li_C9U@y#i/c?i$uLQ8[';I$mMAm_rZta>l`STW_aA5`iD[!80p#_qmN4#tMu[Pu7wkIi)5*4YXAhg)9R2-BAWPbVOzgE$Ib4QuZn0YaE~'C/7h^CTuPybz$u
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Soren Dayton <csdayton@cs.uchicago.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 1997 14:26:46 -0600
In-Reply-To: Steven L Baur's message of 16 Jan 1997 21:10:25 -0800
Message-ID: <xcdpvz4xd2x.fsf@gargoyle164.cs.uchicago.edu>
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.2.40/XEmacs 20.0

Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:

> Soren Dayton writes:
> 
> > top says this about my xemacs process that has been idle for ten hours:
> > 24652 csdayton  25    0   23M   16M cpu    26.8H 29.17% 25.78% xemacs
> 
> > Now, I just iconify it and let it sit and I get this (repeating
> > indefinitely) from a truss.
> 
> > sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, 0xEFFFF0BC, 0x00000000) = 0
> > unlink("/homes/csdayton/.saves-4859-gargoyle164.cs.uchicago.edu") Err#2 ENOENT
> > ioctl(16, FIONREAD, 0xEFFFEFB4)                 = 0
> > ioctl(16, FIONREAD, 0xEFFFEFB4)                 = 0
> > poll(0xEFFFCDD0, 4, 0)                          = 0
> > poll(0xEFFFCD60, 3, 0)                          = 0
> 
> Isn't this due to defining BROKEN_SIGIO?

I am not sure.  How was this treated differently in 19.14, where the
problem does not occur?  (some of the problem has gone away by setting
auto-save-timeout to 0, but not all)

Soren

