Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #187907 > unrolled thread

Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2017-10-15 19:50 +0200
    Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2017-10-17 00:00 +0200
      Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-17 11:50 +0200
        Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed tomas@tuxteam.de - 2017-10-17 12:30 +0200
          Re: system d process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-10-17 12:40 +0200
        Re: system d process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-10-17 12:30 +0200
        Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-10-17 15:20 +0200
      Delayed list posts [Was: Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when  laptop lid closed Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-10-17 12:20 +0200
        Re: Delayed list posts [Was: Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU  when laptop lid closed Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-10-17 16:00 +0200
        Re: Delayed list posts [Was: Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU  when laptop lid closed Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2017-10-17 18:20 +0200
      Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-10-17 12:20 +0200
      Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-10-17 15:10 +0200
        D-Bus (Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed) Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2017-10-17 15:40 +0200
          Re: D-Bus (Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid  closed) Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-10-17 16:40 +0200
        Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2017-10-17 16:30 +0200
    Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2017-10-17 12:50 +0200
    Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2017-10-18 18:40 +0200

#187907 — Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 14.10.2017 um 21:48 schrieb Glen B:
>   295 root      20   0    7448   4432   3992 R 41.2  0.9   0:54.81 systemd-logind
>   298 message+  20   0    6260   3636   3268 S 17.6  0.7   0:17.12 dbus-daemon

That looks like there is a huge amount of dbus messages sent.
Can you run dbus-monitor --system (as root) to see what those messages are?

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#187935

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 16.10.2017 um 02:56 schrieb Glen B:
> On 10/15/2017 10:31 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Am 14.10.2017 um 21:48 schrieb Glen B:
>>>    295 root      20   0    7448   4432   3992 R 41.2  0.9   0:54.81 systemd-logind
>>>    298 message+  20   0    6260   3636   3268 S 17.6  0.7   0:17.12 dbus-daemon
>> That looks like there is a huge amount of dbus messages sent.
>> Can you run dbus-monitor --system (as root) to see what those messages are?
> 
> That's an interesting command, lots of information was spat out. Here's 
> an excerpt of what was put out:
> 
> ----
>   uint32 0
> error time=1508114297.985967 sender=:1.0 -> destination=:1.1 
> error_name=org.freedesktop.systemd1.UnitMasked reply_serial=26352
>     string "Unit suspend.target is masked."
> signal time=1508114297.986032 sender=:1.0 -> destination=(null 
> destination) serial=52814 path=/org/freedesktop/systemd1; 
> interface=org.freedesktop.systemd1.Manager; member=UnitNew
>     string "suspend.target"
>     object path "/org/freedesktop/systemd1/unit/suspend_2etarget"
> signal time=1508114297.986058 sender=:1.0 -> destination=(null 
> destination) serial=52815 path=/org/freedesktop/systemd1; 
> interface=org.freedesktop.systemd1.Manager; member=UnitRemoved
>     string "suspend.target"
>     object path "/org/freedesktop/systemd1/unit/suspend_2etarget"
> signal time=1508114297.991185 sender=:1.1 -> destination=(null 
> destination) serial=26353 path=/org/freedesktop/login1; 
> interface=org.freedesktop.login1.Manager; member=PrepareForSleep
>     boolean true
> method call time=1508114297.992516 sender=:1.1 -> 
> destination=org.freedesktop.systemd1 serial=26354 
> path=/org/freedesktop/systemd1; 
> interface=org.freedesktop.systemd1.Manager; member=StartUnit
>     string "suspend.target"
>     string "replace-irreversibly"
> method call time=1508114297.993237 sender=:1.0 -> 
> destination=org.freedesktop.DBus serial=52816 
> path=/org/freedesktop/DBus; interface=org.freedesktop.DBus; 
> member=GetConnectionUnixUser
>     string ":1.1"
> method return time=1508114297.993292 sender=org.freedesktop.DBus -> 
> destination=:1.0 serial=13188 reply_serial=52816
> ----
> 
> If I'm understanding this correctly, it looks like it's trying to 
> suspend but is somehow getting confused...

Not sure about the confused part. We might need a debug log for
systemd-logind.

That said, is that all? Given the high cpu usage for the dbus-daemon
process I was expecting it to be flooded by dbus messages.

You could also try stracing dbus-daemon and systemd-logind and see if
you get anything interesting.



-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187942

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:12:52PM +0000, Glen B wrote:
> You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!

It must be something else. I'm seeing my mails arrive whithin minutes.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnlzOkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYgFQCePQpR9UNrl4FwTuL4wLq39B+r
3aUAmwfJ3yl+OmSzAHyfNFNtDxjernfA
=5+ym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187945

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:27:06AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:12:52PM +0000, Glen B wrote:
> > You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!
> 
> It must be something else. I'm seeing my mails arrive whithin minutes.

FWIW this one took 1 minute + or - 0.5 minutes going by the mail headers.
There might be a time skew in the servers involved, but you get the ballpark).

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnl1iMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaJnwCeNYTiIXoit85IYA+jsnrLQ8Rn
NYwAn1qWxQ03aihhY1S9XJOSYAG24Yju
=xi0+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187947 — Re: system d process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed

On Tue 17 Oct 2017 at 12:06:27 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:27:06AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:12:52PM +0000, Glen B wrote:
> > > You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!
> > 
> > It must be something else. I'm seeing my mails arrive whithin minutes.
> 
> FWIW this one took 1 minute + or - 0.5 minutes going by the mail headers.
> There might be a time skew in the servers involved, but you get the ballpark).

Sent at 12:06:27 +0200. Arrived at bendel at 10:06:39 +0000 (UTC).
Distributed at 10:24:09 +0000 (UTC). Arrived here at 11:24:11 +0100.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187946 — Re: system d process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed

On Tue 17 Oct 2017 at 11:27:06 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:12:52PM +0000, Glen B wrote:
> > You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!
> 
> It must be something else. I'm seeing my mails arrive whithin minutes.


Your mail took 18 minutes to go from one end of bendel to the other.
You are getting special treatment if you suffered no such delay. ;)

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187966

On 10/17/2017 02:27 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:12:52PM +0000, Glen B wrote:
>> You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!
> 
> It must be something else. I'm seeing my mails arrive whithin minutes.
> 
> Cheers


"rhkramer" time is off, it looks like his post is 12hr in the future.

Cheers!
-- 
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Buster - KDE Plasma 5.8.7 - AMD A8-7600 - EXT4 at sda7
Registered Linux User #380263

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187943 — Delayed list posts [Was: Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed

On 16.10.17 22:12, Glen B wrote:
> You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I
> fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by
> about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!

It was 25.4 hrs for your message:

X-Greylist: delayed 91420 seconds by postgrey-1.35 at bendel; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:53:30
        UTC

The reason might just be:

(Client CN "mail.protection.outlook.com", Issuer "Microsoft IT SSL SHA2" (not verified))
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BBC876
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:53:29 +0000 (UTC)

Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187970 — Re: Delayed list posts [Was: Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed

On Tue 17 Oct 2017 at 21:02:39 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:

> On 16.10.17 22:12, Glen B wrote:
> > You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I
> > fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by
> > about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!
> 
> It was 25.4 hrs for your message:
> 
> X-Greylist: delayed 91420 seconds by postgrey-1.35 at bendel; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:53:30
>         UTC
> 
> The reason might just be:
> 
> (Client CN "mail.protection.outlook.com", Issuer "Microsoft IT SSL SHA2" (not verified))
> by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BBC876
> for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:53:29 +0000 (UTC)

Whatever the significance of the "delayed 91420 seconds", 25.4 hours was
not the time between the mail being sent and the list software sending it
out. That is closer to 11 hours (not 17.5 hours as I said previously).

As I understand greylisting, the client first has the mail rejected and
then has to try later, the default time interval for a retry generally
being 300 seconds. Perhaps mail.protection.outlook.com uses a different
IP address each time. That wouldn't go down well.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187986 — Re: Delayed list posts [Was: Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 16.10.17 22:12, Glen B wrote:
> > You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I
> > fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by
> > about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!
> 
> It was 25.4 hrs for your message:
> 
> X-Greylist: delayed 91420 seconds by postgrey-1.35 at bendel; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:53:30
>         UTC
> 
> The reason might just be:

The reason is because outlook.com is running a very large sender pool,
and it takes about 10 hours for randomly selecting from the pool to hit
a sender that lists.debian.org has seen previously.

We'll drop in a whitelist for outlook.com entry to fix this eventually.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      https://www.donarmstrong.com

"You know," said Arthur, "it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in
a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die from
asphyxiation in deep space that I really wish I'd listened to what my
mother told me when I was young."
"Why, what did she tell you?"
"I don't know, I didn't listen."
 –- Douglas Adams _The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy_

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187944

On Mon 16 Oct 2017 at 22:12:52 +0000, Glen B wrote:

> You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I
> fixed it; for some reason, this mailing list is delaying my emails by
> about 24 hours. So much for speedy technology!

>From its headers: at the start of your mail's journey to me

Received: from CO1NAM03FT006.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com
        (10.152.80.53) by CO1NAM03HT238.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com
	(10.152.80.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
	cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.20.77.10; Mon, 16
        Oct 2017 22:12:53 +0000

Arriving at bendel. !7.5 hours to get there.

Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03olkn082a.outbound.protection.outlook.com)
[IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe48::82a])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
        (Client CN "mail.protection.outlook.com", Issuer "Microsoft IT SSL SHA2" (not verified))
        by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BBC876
        for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:53:29 +0000 (UTC)

Sent out to list members. The 26 minute delay in distribution is because
you have systemd in the subject line,

Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
	id 80E42DA; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:09:10 +0000 (UTC)

I received it 3 seconds later.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187964

On 10/16/2017 02:33 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 16.10.2017 um 02:56 schrieb Glen B:
>> On 10/15/2017 10:31 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> Am 14.10.2017 um 21:48 schrieb Glen B:
>>>>     295 root      20   0    7448   4432   3992 R 41.2  0.9   0:54.81 systemd-logind
>>>>     298 message+  20   0    6260   3636   3268 S 17.6  0.7   0:17.12 dbus-daemon
>>> That looks like there is a huge amount of dbus messages sent.
>>> Can you run dbus-monitor --system (as root) to see what those messages are?
>>
>> That's an interesting command, lots of information was spat out. Here's
>> an excerpt of what was put out:
>>
>> ----
>>    uint32 0
>> error time=1508114297.985967 sender=:1.0 -> destination=:1.1
>> error_name=org.freedesktop.systemd1.UnitMasked reply_serial=26352
>>      string "Unit suspend.target is masked."
>> signal time=1508114297.986032 sender=:1.0 -> destination=(null
>> destination) serial=52814 path=/org/freedesktop/systemd1;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.systemd1.Manager; member=UnitNew
>>      string "suspend.target"
>>      object path "/org/freedesktop/systemd1/unit/suspend_2etarget"
>> signal time=1508114297.986058 sender=:1.0 -> destination=(null
>> destination) serial=52815 path=/org/freedesktop/systemd1;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.systemd1.Manager; member=UnitRemoved
>>      string "suspend.target"
>>      object path "/org/freedesktop/systemd1/unit/suspend_2etarget"
>> signal time=1508114297.991185 sender=:1.1 -> destination=(null
>> destination) serial=26353 path=/org/freedesktop/login1;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.login1.Manager; member=PrepareForSleep
>>      boolean true
>> method call time=1508114297.992516 sender=:1.1 ->
>> destination=org.freedesktop.systemd1 serial=26354
>> path=/org/freedesktop/systemd1;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.systemd1.Manager; member=StartUnit
>>      string "suspend.target"
>>      string "replace-irreversibly"
>> method call time=1508114297.993237 sender=:1.0 ->
>> destination=org.freedesktop.DBus serial=52816
>> path=/org/freedesktop/DBus; interface=org.freedesktop.DBus;
>> member=GetConnectionUnixUser
>>      string ":1.1"
>> method return time=1508114297.993292 sender=org.freedesktop.DBus ->
>> destination=:1.0 serial=13188 reply_serial=52816
>> ----
>>
>> If I'm understanding this correctly, it looks like it's trying to
>> suspend but is somehow getting confused...
> 
> Not sure about the confused part. We might need a debug log for
> systemd-logind.
> 
> That said, is that all? Given the high cpu usage for the dbus-daemon
> process I was expecting it to be flooded by dbus messages.
> 
> You could also try stracing dbus-daemon and systemd-logind and see if
> you get anything interesting.

Michael I found it interesting that I do not have a folder /org/ .hidden 
or not and that's with kde5 desktop on Stretch.
-- 
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Stretch - KDE Plasma 5.8.6 - Intel G3220 - EXT4 at sda7
Registered Linux User #380263

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187968 — D-Bus (Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 17.10.2017 um 14:49 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:
>>> path=/org/freedesktop/DBus; interface=org.freedesktop.DBus;

> Michael I found it interesting that I do not have a folder /org/ .hidden
> or not and that's with kde5 desktop on Stretch.

Those are D-Bus path names, not file names.

https://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-tutorial.html explains the basic
concepts.

If you want to dig a bit deeper, install d-feet to explore what D-Bus
services are running on your system and what API they provide.

Michael
-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187977 — Re: D-Bus (Re: systemd process(es) consuming CPU when laptop lid closed)

On 10/17/2017 06:22 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 17.10.2017 um 14:49 schrieb Jimmy Johnson:
>>>> path=/org/freedesktop/DBus; interface=org.freedesktop.DBus;
> 
>> Michael I found it interesting that I do not have a folder /org/ .hidden
>> or not and that's with kde5 desktop on Stretch.
> 
> Those are D-Bus path names, not file names.
> 
> https://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-tutorial.html explains the basic
> concepts.
> 
> If you want to dig a bit deeper, install d-feet to explore what D-Bus
> services are running on your system and what API they provide.
> 
> Michael

Michael, this sounds like the background system and what a normal user 
would not get into. I will explore.

Thanks you,
-- 
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Buster - KDE Plasma 5.8.7 - AMD A8-7600 - EXT4 at sda7
Registered Linux User #380263

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187974

Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>      object path "/org/freedesktop/systemd1/unit/suspend_2etarget"

> Michael I found it interesting that I do not have a folder /org/ .hidden 
> or not and that's with kde5 desktop on Stretch.

The "object path" does not mean a filesystem path. There is nothing to
worry about a missing "/org".

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187948

On Oct 16, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Glen B <lucky0106@msn.com> wrote:

> You’re going to get an e-mail from me in ~10 hours or so saying I fixed it;

How did you fix it?

Thanks,
Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188022

On 10/16/17 11:13, Glen B wrote:
> Does anyone think this deserves a bug report
  or am I misunderstanding something here?

Yes.  Do the bug report, so that somebody, somewhere, sometime might 
develop a test for the problem, run the test, and fix the problem in 
future systemd, X.org, Debian, whatever releases.


I also have a laptop, redirect the video to an external monitor, and 
close the lid.  I believe it has the same problem as you have reported. 
But, when I SSH in from another machine to run top, the problem goes 
away.  So, I'll have to write a cron job that runs top once a minute and 
dumps the output to a timestamped file if I want more information.


However, one CPU in my laptop goes to 100% whenever I lock the screen. 
That I could see via SSH and top:

     https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878313


David

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web