|Summary:||(VM)Stopping and restarting kupdated makes it use 100% CPU time|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||Christian Bauer <cb>|
|Component:||kernel||Assignee:||Arjan van de Ven <arjanv>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||Brian Brock <bbrock>|
|Version:||9||CC:||kobras, riel, veeshooter|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2004-09-30 15:41:00 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Christian Bauer 2003-05-27 22:53:34 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 Galeon/1.2.10 (X11; Linux i686; U;) Gecko/20030314 Description of problem: After stopping and continuing the kupdated process by sending it a SIGSTOP followed by a SIGCONT, the process uses up 100% CPU time and continues to do so until the machine is rebooted (or kupdated is stopped again). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): kernel-2.4.20-13.9 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. kill -STOP `pidof kupdated` 2. kill -CONT `pidof kupdated` 3. top Actual Results: kupdated shows close to 100% CPU usage in the 'top' display. Expected Results: kupdated remains a background process, as after a fresh boot. Additional info: This bug causes problems with noflushd which uses SIGSTOP to suspend kupdated when the hard disk is spun down. Downgrading to kernel-2.4.20-13.8 from Red Hat 8.0 solves the issue. A stock 2.4.20 kernel also doesn't show this behavior.
Comment 1 Mike Hockings 2004-01-31 18:27:40 UTC
This problem is also present in the current (2.4.22-1.2149.nptl) kernel. Simply issuing the command killall -STOP kupdated will cause kupdated to consume 88% or more (typically over 90%) of the cpu. All attempts to bring the cpu usage down short of a reboot have not been successful.
Comment 2 Bugzilla owner 2004-09-30 15:41:00 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. However, Red Hat no longer maintains this version of the product. Please upgrade to the latest version and open a new bug if the problem persists. The Fedora Legacy project (http://fedoralegacy.org/) maintains some older releases, and if you believe this bug is interesting to them, please report the problem in the bug tracker at: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/