Page 1 of 1

igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:58 am
by FTC
Hi, I have identified a memory leak with the process igfxsrvc.exe (part of the intel graphics driver) which will increase its memory requirements specially when working w/battery (not connected) or recharging. This can easily be seen through the task manager 'processes' tab, under 'Mem usage' column. The leak is big enough so that after 8-10 hours working this way, this process will usually take about 50MB of memory instead of the 'normal' 3MB.

Now the question is if this also happens to other T400 owners around here, and with all the driver versions ?. I have experienced this leak with the last 3 intel video drivers: 5225, 5189 and 5160. Not sure if older ones exhibit this behavior though...

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:25 pm
by Colonel O'Neill
I am not seeing the same kind of behavior; my igfxsrvc is usually around 400 to 900 kb of RAM usage according to taskmanager (I do use CleanMem a few times a day, and I don't restart often).

I'm not quite sure how to check my driver version though ><"

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:28 pm
by FTC
Hi, the version number can be seen in the information center of the intel graphics control panel, which can be accessed either from within the control center, the taskbar (if enabled), or desktop properties->settings->advanced.. It aslo appears in device manager, under display adapters, and tab 'driver' inside whatever device driver is installed. For instance mine is 6.14.10.5225, but only the last 4 digits usually change.

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:54 pm
by Colonel O'Neill
D'oh! I was looking for the Intel graphic software version through igfxcfg and trying to find the About page.

Bizarre... I'm two whole versions ahead: 8.641.1.1000

The Driver Provider is ATI too; but I have the switchable model with switchable enabled.

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:55 am
by FTC
Hi, yes, I think this is an intel specific bug, so that if you are not using the intel graphics chip, most probably you won't see the memory leak...

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:11 pm
by FTC
A brief update: Just installed the new Lenovo drivers for t400 (6.14.10.5220) and the problem persists. This can be very annoying if you don't shutdown the machine daily... it can easily be the biggest responsible for degraded performance in a machine after a while. As a bypass, you can always kill the process with task manager.. and free up the memory. It looks like another one is promptly created.

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:54 am
by blacktomb
I just kill this session when I saw it grow up. it's really annoying, but you don't really need to reboot.

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:26 am
by afuiw
I see a memory leak too.

Currently igfxsrvc.exe is taking 251MB physical RAM and 631MB swap.

ThinkPad X201
Driver 6.14.10.5313
Video BIOS 2026.0

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:22 pm
by Colonel O'Neill
Have you tried updating to the latest Intel graphics drivers?

Could also terminate the processes outright. I'm running my T400 fine without them. (May contribute to lowered battery life, though.)

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:25 pm
by afuiw
Yes, I usually just kill the process. Not sure what starts igfxsrvc back up though -- perhaps something related to using the Intel Video and Graphics Control Panel.

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:38 pm
by mozz
Problem still exists
My Mem Usage is 173,500K

Thinkpad T410s
igfxsrvc.exe version is 6.15.10.5237
igxprd32.dll version is 6.14.10.5237
Win-XP Pro Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 Build 2600

Re: igfxsrvc memory leak ?

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:03 pm
by bluezeak
Still exists.

Lenovo T410
Driver Version 6.14.10.5292

I RARELY turn my laptop off (once every 2 weeks?) - usually just put it to sleep, sometimes hibernate. I started noticing lots of hard drive activity and saw it was using 800 megs of virtual memory. Can't remember how much actual memory, but a couple hundread at least.