[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#908647: marked as done (CPU hog during fcheck task)



Your message dated Sat, 26 Nov 2022 20:55:17 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <20221126195517.0E211BE2DE0@eldamar.lan>
and subject line Closing this bug (BTS maintenance for src:linux bugs)
has caused the Debian Bug report #908647,
regarding CPU hog during fcheck task
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
908647: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=908647
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linux-latest
Version: 4.9.110-3+deb9u4
Severity: important

After kernel update on Debian9 system from 4.9.65-3+deb9u1 to
4.9.110-3+deb9u4 the fcheck cron job run +45000 seconds instead of
original +8500 seconds (tested twice with same results).

Tested with command
$ perf stat -B -o fcheck.perf.stat nocache nice ionice -c3
/usr/sbin/fcheck -asxrf /etc/fcheck/fcheck.cfg >/var/run/fcheck.out
2>&1

$ grep "time elapsed" fcheck.perf.stat*
fcheck.perf.stat:    8573.851887243 seconds time elapsed
fcheck.perf.stat2:    8544.105864343 seconds time elapsed
fcheck.perf.stat3:   45450.729247342 seconds time elapsed
fcheck.perf.stat4:   45808.049670206 seconds time elapsed

-- 
Peter

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi

This bug was filed for a very old kernel or the bug is old itself
without resolution.

If you can reproduce it with

- the current version in unstable/testing
- the latest kernel from backports

please reopen the bug, see https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
for details.

Regards,
Salvatore

--- End Message ---

Reply to: