File move causes 100% CPU usage

[Volodya]

When I move a file between different drives the CPU usage goes up to 100%. This happens regardless of whether the drives are internal or external.

$ lsb_release -rd
Description: Ubuntu 8.04
Release: 8.04

up-to-date updates

[Nick Ellery (nick.ellery)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. This bug did not have a package associated with it, which is important for ensuring that it gets looked at by the proper developers. You can learn more about finding the right package at [WWW] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage . I have classified this bug as a bug in nautilus.

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

thank you for your bug report, what file manage do you use? could you try to obtain a backtrace http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProgramCrash when the software is using cpu and attach the file to the bug report?

[Henrik S. (henrik-hw0)]

Have you checked if DMA is enabled on the drives in question?
You can use "hdparm" to check.

[Henrik S. (henrik-hw0)]

Also if you move a file using the commandline (i.e. "mv myfile /tmp/") do you also get 100% cpu usage?

[Bjørn Sandåker (prognatus)]

I beleive this is a well-known "feature" in the kernel itself. It prioritizes file operations.

I can confirm this going on with .tar backups and beleive it's the same phenomenon. When working with large files, the kernel uses so much resources that the user interface part becomes sluggish or unresponsive.

[Volodya (volodya)]

1. hdparm tells me "HDIO_GET_DMA failed" for both drives on my system.
2. mv command does seem to produce the same results, 100% CPU usage.

[Volodya (volodya)]

Resetting the bug from being related to nautilus (since it appears that it has no relation to that).

[Henrik S. (henrik-hw0)]

Most likely a linux kernel bug. A kernel upgrade/change just might fix it.

Can you please report exact kernel release, as given by "uname -r"
Attach output from "lspci -v -nn" and "lsmod"

[Henrik S. (henrik-hw0)]

Here's a better bugreport recipy:

uname -a > uname-a.log
cat /proc/version_signature > version.log
dmesg > dmesg.log
sudo lspci -vvnn > lspci-vvnn.log

[Henrik S. (henrik-hw0)]

Hi. Hmm. Apart from what looks like a shitty WLAN driver I can't spot anything obvious.
It looks like you're running a pretty common type of Intel chipset.

I'll mark this as a kernel bug and let the kernel guys take it from there.
It's more likely you'll get a response if relevant info is provided. Now we have some at least.

[Henrik S. (henrik-hw0)]

I couldn't set Triaged status, so I set it to confirmed instead.

[Leann Ogasawara (leannogasawara)]

The Ubuntu Kernel Team is planning to move to the 2.6.27 kernel for the upcoming Intrepid Ibex 8.10 release. As a result, the kernel team would appreciate it if you could please test this newer 2.6.27 Ubuntu kernel. There are one of two ways you should be able to test:

1) If you are comfortable installing packages on your own, the linux-image-2.6.27-* package is currently available for you to install and test.

--or--

2) The upcoming Alpha5 for Intrepid Ibex 8.10 will contain this newer 2.6.27 Ubuntu kernel. Alpha5 is set to be released Thursday Sept 4. Please watch http://www.ubuntu.com/testing for Alpha5 to be announced. You should then be able to test via a LiveCD.

Please let us know immediately if this newer 2.6.27 kernel resolves the bug reported here or if the issue remains. More importantly, please open a new bug report for each new bug/regression introduced by the 2.6.27 kernel and tag the bug report with 'linux-2.6.27'. Also, please specifically note if the issue does or does not appear in the 2.6.26 kernel. Thanks again, we really appreicate your help and feedback.

[Volodya (volodya)]

I don't see any package available beyond linux-image-2.6.24-21

[Ralph Janke (txwikinger)]

Volodya,

the 2.6.27 kernel is in the intrepid BETA release. You can get the live-CD for intrepid-BETA and test it from there.

[Leann Ogasawara (leannogasawara)]

The final Intrepid Ibex 8.10 release is set to come out today. Please test and let us know if this is still an issue. Thanks.

[Javier Jardón (jjardon)]

We are closing this bug report because it lacks the information we need to investigate the problem, as described in the previous comments. Please reopen it if you can give us the missing information, and don't hesitate to submit bug reports in the future. To reopen the bug report you can click on the current status, under the Status column, and change the Status back to "New". Thanks again!