Description: The issue is probably already known (bug 112568). However, there is an particular difference when doing the same steps for a copy of the document & the original in older versions. Maybe worth some (bibisect) investigation Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open attachment 143782 [details] 2. Add new paragraphs before the table (and row them) (monitor CPU usage) -> high usage (even with 3.5.7.2) 3. CTRL+A & CTRL+C & paste into a new document & repeat step 2. -> CPU hogging with 4.2 and up & but fine with 4.0 Actual Results: Adding new paragraphs for a copy of the document is slow and CPU hogging in 4.2 and up but not in 4.0 or 3.5.7.2 Expected Results: Behavior like 4.0 (when working with copy of the document) Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Found in Version: 6.2.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: fa881095bc62c3646406c82a98d8503377288a54 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3; UI render: default; TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2018-07-22_03:27:00 Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); Calc: CL and in 4.2 but not in Versie 4.0.0.3 (Bouw-id: 7545bee9c2a0782548772a21bc84a9dcc583b89)
Not reproducible for me with LO 6.1.1.0.0+ built at home under Ubuntu 16.04 x86-64. What do you mean "and row them"? Status set to NEEDINFO, please set it back to UNCONFIRMED once requested informations are provided. Best regards. JBF
> What do you mean "and row them"? No clue ;-). Step 2. should be: hold Enter before the table containing the images.
Telesto: can you give some % figures for the CPU hogging? This way we would know what is "fine" in your opinion. In my case it is a 6 % unit difference between master and 3.5.0 on Windows in step 2.
Created attachment 144593 [details] Screencast LibO4.0.0.3 Possible to skip the first 45 seconds (lots of the same). Smoothness starts after coping. Thinking about it: It might be caused by the new image rendering. So likely dupe of some of these: bug 112568 bug 86675 bug 80659
Indeed, I bisected this on Ubuntu 14.04 with 42max and got the same blamed commit as for bug 112568 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 112568 ***