Re: runaway packagekitd process, was F29 Beta 1.5 problem

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

 



On Sat, 2018-09-22 at 10:32 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:49 AM pmkellly@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> <pmkellly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I decided to go ahead to try doing some testing. The runaway mode was
> > still running when I started testing things. First I did the desktop
> > browser tests and they passed. Then I did the desktop terminal tests and
> > they also passed. Then I ran the desktop update graphical tests using
> > the Software application. The application started fine and I could get
> > to the Updates screen okay, but when I clicked the Refresh button, after
> > a few seconds I got a gray colored pop up that said it could not
> > continue and a long list of errors. The pop up does not support Copy so
> > I didn't capture the details. I closed the Software application and
> > tried to reopen it. The window came up but the usual graphics and text
> > was not present. I restarted the PC to get out of the runaway mode and
> > then I was able to run the update graphical test to completion and it
> > passed.
> > 
> > It seems that this gnome-software runaway mode does more than just use
> > up cycles. I am discontinuing testing. Please let me know if there is
> > something more you want me to do / try.
> 
> I see a lot of these in your journal:
> 
> Sep 22 10:03:40 f29h.local packagekitd[1104]: g_object_ref: assertion
> 'G_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed
> 
> I see them in mine as well, no idea if they're related to the runaway
> process. What I'm seeing is packagekit using about 9% CPU when it's
> downloading metadata (refreshing repo and app info); and using a more
> than 100% CPU when it's downloading files.
> 
> So I filed this:
> g_object_ref spewing in journal bug
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1631968

Thanks for that. I found what looks like a fix for it upstream, and
also noticed quite a lot of other bugfix commits ahead of the current
Fedora build, so I've backported a bunch of those and am running a new
PackageKit build now:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29813351

once that's done I'll submit an update. Please give that updated
PackageKit a shot and see if it behaves better. Thanks!

(CCing hughsie to let him know what I did)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux