The author's Chumby 8, a vintage internet appliance, consistently ran at 100% CPU usage due to a kernel bug affecting the way the CPU's clock frequency was handled. The original kernel expected a constant clock speed, but the Chumby's CPU dynamically scaled its frequency. This discrepancy caused the kernel's timekeeping functions to malfunction, leading to a busy loop that consumed all available CPU cycles. Upgrading to a newer kernel, compiled with the correct configuration for a variable clock speed, resolved the issue and brought CPU usage back to normal levels.
iOS 18 introduces a new feature that automatically reboots devices after a prolonged period of inactivity. Reverse engineering revealed this is managed by the SpringBoard process, which monitors user interaction and triggers a reboot after approximately 72 hours of inactivity. The reboot is signaled by setting a specific flag in a system property and is considered a "soft" reboot, likely to maintain device state where possible. This feature seems primarily targeted at corporate devices enrolled in Mobile Device Management (MDM) systems, as a way to clear temporary states and potentially address performance issues resulting from prolonged uptime without requiring manual intervention. The exact conditions for triggering the reboot, beyond inactivity time, are still being investigated.
Hacker News users discussed the potential reasons behind iOS 18's automatic reboot after extended inactivity, with some speculating it's related to memory management, specifically clearing caches or resetting background processes. Others suggested it could be a security measure to mitigate potential exploits or simply a bug. A few commenters expressed concern about the reboot happening without warning, potentially interrupting ongoing tasks or data syncing. Some highlighted the lack of official documentation on this behavior and the author's reverse engineering efforts to uncover the cause. The discussion also touched on similar behavior observed in other operating systems and the overall complexity of modern OS architectures.
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.