This blog post, titled "Why is my CPU usage always 100%? (Upgrading my Chumby 8 kernel part 9)", details the author's ongoing journey to upgrade the Linux kernel on their Chumby 8, a now-discontinued internet appliance. A persistent issue of 100% CPU utilization plagues the device after the kernel upgrade, prompting a deep dive into diagnosing the root cause.
Initially, the author suspects a runaway process is consuming all available CPU cycles. Using the top command, they identify the culprit as the kworker process, specifically a kernel thread dedicated to handling software interrupts. This discovery shifts the focus from a misbehaving user-space application to a problem within the kernel itself.
The author's investigation then explores various potential sources of excessive software interrupts. They meticulously eliminate possibilities such as network interrupts by disconnecting the device from the network, and timer interrupts by analyzing their frequency and confirming they are within expected parameters.
The post highlights the challenges of debugging kernel-level issues, especially on an embedded system with limited resources and debugging tools. The author leverages the available tools, including top, /proc/interrupts, and kernel debugging messages, to progressively narrow down the problem.
Through a process of elimination and careful observation, the author eventually identifies the excessive software interrupts as stemming from the SD card driver. The continuous stream of interrupts from the SD card controller overwhelms the system, leading to the observed 100% CPU usage. While the exact reason for the SD card driver's behavior remains unclear at the end of the post, the author pinpoints the source of the problem and sets the stage for further investigation in future installments. The post concludes by emphasizing the iterative nature of debugging and the importance of systematically eliminating potential causes.
This LWN article delves into a significant enhancement proposed for the Linux kernel's io_uring subsystem: the ability to directly create processes using a new operation type. Currently, io_uring excels at asynchronous I/O operations, allowing applications to submit batches of I/O requests without blocking. However, tasks requiring process creation, like launching a helper process to handle a specific part of a workload, necessitate a context switch back to the main kernel, disrupting the efficient asynchronous flow. This proposal aims to remedy this by introducing a dedicated IORING_OP_PROCESS operation.
The proposed mechanism allows applications to specify all necessary parameters for process creation within the io_uring submission queue entry (SQE). This includes details like the executable path, command-line arguments, environment variables, user and group IDs, and various other process attributes. Critically, this eliminates the need for a system call like fork() or execve(), thereby maintaining the asynchronous nature of the operation within the io_uring context. Upon completion, the kernel places the process ID (PID) of the newly created process in the completion queue entry (CQE), enabling the application to monitor and manage the spawned process.
The article highlights the intricate details of how this process creation within io_uring is implemented. It explains how the necessary data structures are populated within the kernel, how the new process is forked and executed within the context of the io_uring kernel threads, and how signal handling and other process-related intricacies are addressed. Specifically, the IORING_OP_PROCESS operation utilizes a dedicated structure called io_uring_process, embedded within the SQE, which mirrors the arguments of the traditional execveat() system call. This allows for a familiar and comprehensive interface for developers already accustomed to process creation in Linux.
Furthermore, the article discusses the security implications and design choices made to mitigate potential vulnerabilities. Given the asynchronous nature of io_uring, ensuring proper isolation and preventing unauthorized process creation are paramount. The article emphasizes how the proposal adheres to existing security mechanisms and leverages existing kernel infrastructure for process management, thereby minimizing the introduction of new security risks. This involves careful handling of file descriptor inheritance, namespace management, and other security-sensitive aspects of process creation.
Finally, the article touches upon the performance benefits of this proposed feature. By avoiding the context switch overhead associated with traditional process creation system calls, applications leveraging io_uring can achieve greater efficiency, particularly in scenarios involving frequent process spawning. This streamlines workflows involving parallel processing and asynchronous task execution, ultimately boosting overall system performance.
The Hacker News post titled "Process Creation in Io_uring" sparked a discussion with several insightful comments. Many commenters focused on the potential performance benefits and use cases of this new functionality.
One commenter highlighted the significance of io_uring evolving from asynchronous I/O to encompassing process creation, viewing it as a step towards a more unified and efficient system interface. They expressed excitement about the possibilities this opens up for streamlining complex operations.
Another commenter delved into the technical details, explaining how CLONE_PIDFD could be leveraged within io_uring to manage child processes more effectively. They pointed out the potential to avoid race conditions and simplify error handling compared to traditional methods. This commenter also discussed the benefits of integrating process management into the same asynchronous framework used for I/O.
The discussion also touched upon the security implications of using io_uring for process creation. One commenter raised concerns about the potential for vulnerabilities if this powerful functionality isn't implemented and used carefully. This concern spurred further discussion about the importance of proper sandboxing and security audits.
Several commenters expressed interest in using this feature for specific applications, such as containerization and serverless computing. They speculated on how the performance improvements could lead to more efficient and responsive systems.
A recurring theme throughout the comments was the innovative nature of io_uring and its potential to reshape system programming. Commenters praised the ongoing development and expressed anticipation for future advancements.
Finally, some commenters discussed the complexities of using io_uring and the need for better documentation and examples. They suggested that wider adoption would depend on making this powerful technology more accessible to developers.
This blog post by Naehrdine explores an unexpected reboot phenomenon observed on an iPhone running iOS 18 and details the process of reverse engineering the operating system to pinpoint the root cause. The author begins by describing the seemingly random nature of the reboots, noting they occurred after periods of inactivity, specifically overnight while the phone was charging and seemingly unused. This led to initial suspicions of a hardware issue, but traditional troubleshooting steps, like resetting settings and even a complete device restore using iTunes, failed to resolve the problem.
Faced with the persistence of the issue, the author embarked on a deeper investigation involving reverse engineering iOS 18. This involved utilizing tools and techniques to analyze the operating system's inner workings. The post explicitly mentions the use of Frida, a dynamic instrumentation toolkit, which allows for the injection of custom code into running processes, enabling real-time monitoring and manipulation. The author also highlights the use of a disassembler and debugger to examine the compiled code of the operating system and trace its execution flow.
The investigation focused on system daemons, which are background processes responsible for essential system operations. Through meticulous analysis, the author identified a specific daemon, 'powerd', as the likely culprit. 'powerd' is responsible for managing the device's power state, including sleep and wake cycles. Further examination of 'powerd' revealed a previously unknown internal check within the daemon related to prolonged inactivity. This check, under certain conditions, was triggering an undocumented system reset.
The blog post then meticulously details the specific function within 'powerd' that was causing the reboot, providing the function's name and a breakdown of its logic. The author's analysis revealed that the function appears to be designed to mitigate potential hardware or software issues arising from extended periods of inactivity by forcing a system restart. However, this function seemed to be malfunctioning, triggering the reboot even in the absence of any genuine problems.
While the author stops short of providing a definitive solution or patch, the post concludes by expressing confidence that the identified function is indeed responsible for the unexplained reboots. The in-depth analysis presented provides valuable insights into the inner workings of iOS power management and offers a potential starting point for developing a fix, either through official Apple updates or community-driven workarounds. The author's work demonstrates the power of reverse engineering in uncovering hidden behaviors and troubleshooting complex software issues.
The Hacker News post titled "Reverse Engineering iOS 18 Inactivity Reboot" sparked a discussion with several insightful comments.
One commenter questioned the necessity of the inactivity reboot, especially given its potential to interrupt important tasks like long-running computations or data transfers. They also expressed concern about the lack of user control over this feature.
Another commenter pointed out the potential security implications of the reboot, particularly if a device is left unattended and unlocked in a sensitive environment. They suggested the need for an option to disable the automatic reboot for specific situations.
A different commenter shared their personal experience with the inactivity reboot, describing the frustration of having their device restart unexpectedly during a long process. They emphasized the importance of giving users more control over such system behaviors.
Several commenters discussed the technical aspects of the reverse engineering process, praising the author of the blog post for their detailed analysis. They also speculated about the potential reasons behind Apple's implementation of the inactivity reboot, such as memory management or security hardening.
One commenter suggested that the reboot might be related to preventing potential exploits that rely on long-running processes, but acknowledged the inconvenience it causes for users.
Another commenter highlighted the potential negative impact on accessibility for users who rely on assistive technologies, as the reboot could interrupt their workflow and require them to reconfigure their settings.
Overall, the comments reflect a mix of curiosity about the technical details, concern about the potential drawbacks of the feature, and a desire for more user control over the behavior of their devices. The commenters generally appreciate the technical analysis of the blog post author while expressing a need for Apple to provide options or clarity around this feature.
Summary of Comments ( 74 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42649862
The Hacker News comments primarily focus on the surprising complexity and challenges involved in the author's quest to upgrade the kernel of a Chumby 8. Several commenters expressed admiration for the author's deep dive into the embedded system's inner workings, with some jokingly comparing it to a software archaeological expedition. There's also discussion about the prevalence of inefficient browser implementations on embedded devices, contributing to high CPU usage. Some suggest alternative approaches, like using a lightweight browser or a different operating system entirely. A few commenters shared their own experiences with similar embedded devices and the difficulties in optimizing their performance. The overall sentiment reflects appreciation for the author's detailed troubleshooting process and the interesting technical insights it provides.
The Hacker News post discussing the blog post "Why is my CPU usage always 100%? Upgrading my Chumby 8 kernel (Part 9)" has several comments exploring various aspects of the situation and offering potential solutions.
One commenter points out the inherent difficulty in debugging such embedded systems, highlighting the lack of sophisticated tools and the often obscure nature of the problems. They sympathize with the author's struggle, acknowledging the frustration that can arise when dealing with limited resources and cryptic error messages.
Another commenter questions the author's decision to stick with the older kernel (2.6.32), suggesting that moving to a more modern kernel might be a more efficient approach in the long run. They acknowledge the author's stated reasons for remaining with the older kernel (familiarity and control) but argue that the benefits of a newer kernel, including potential performance improvements and bug fixes, might outweigh the effort involved in upgrading.
A third commenter focuses on the specific issue of the
kworkerprocess consuming high CPU. They suggest investigating whether a driver is misbehaving or if some background process is stuck in a loop. They propose using tools likestraceorperfto pinpoint the culprit and gain a better understanding of the kernel's behavior. This commenter also mentions the possibility of a hardware issue, although they consider it less likely.Further discussion revolves around the challenges of real-time systems and the potential impact of interrupt handling on CPU usage. One commenter suggests examining interrupt frequencies and considering the possibility of interrupt coalescing to reduce overhead.
Finally, there's a brief exchange about the Chumby device itself, with one commenter expressing nostalgia for the device and another sharing their own experience with embedded systems development. This adds a touch of personal reflection to the technical discussion.
Overall, the comments provide a valuable extension to the blog post, offering diverse perspectives on debugging embedded systems, troubleshooting high CPU usage, and the specific challenges posed by the Chumby 8 and its older kernel. The commenters offer practical suggestions and insights drawn from their own experiences, creating a collaborative problem-solving environment.