Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101211 Firefox/4.0b8pre ID:20101211030333 Rrepoted on Forum http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=10302629#p10302629 Very high CPU usage on paper.smp.singtao.com CPU usage 30%-50% Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start Minefield with new profile 2. Open URL ( http://paper.smp.singtao.com ) 4. Wait till the page finishes completely loading Actual Results: Very high CPU usage on paper.smp.singtao.com CPU usage 30%-50% Expected Results: CPU usage should be 0%-10% (as of Firefox3.6.x) Regression window(cached hourly): Works:(CPU 0%-10%): http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/212a391d3b79 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101109 Firefox/4.0b8pre ID:20101110052514 fails(CPU 30%-50%): http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bdbef533364f Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101109 Firefox/4.0b8pre ID:20101110081923 Pushlog: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=212a391d3b79&tochange=bdbef533364f

I wonder if bug 619176 helps with this.

I thought this bug mentioned scrolling, but is doesn't look like it, so the previous comment is probably not correct.

Which process has the high CPU usage? firefox.exe or plugin-container.exe? This is probably a dup of bug 612113.

plugin-container.exe is. bug 612113 did not mention any regression range. so I do not know this is a dupe or not.

Unless this also causes noticeable lag or stuttering, I really don't think this needs to block. A profile might be nice, but since it will include Flash that might be a bit tricky.

Life of the battery of the laptop PC will become the problem

The problem seems to have been solved Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:2.0b11pre) Gecko/20110125 Firefox/4.0b11pre ID:20110125140611

Confirmed on http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6a097e294828 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b10pre) Gecko/20110125 Firefox/4.0b10pre ID:20110125030335

Fixed range: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=16d3af58499c&tochange=aa611c72c337 It seems fixed by Bug 626177