LinuxQuestions.org
Go Job Hunting at the LQ Job Marketplace
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-22-2014, 08:13 PM   #16
rob.rice
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 784

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 104Reputation: 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
console-kit-daemon is creating a new thread for each process, which htop is reporting as a new process.

I'll bet that the command
Code:
ps -ef | grep console | grep -v grep | wc -l
returns 1 on your system. console-kit-daemon isn't oinking up as much of your resources as you think.
yeha your right
can It be configured so that it dose not start a new instance for every process
programs like ls certainly don't need udev or another instance of a wrapper for udev
and what is the over head ( time wise ) in starting another instance of udev+consol-kit for each command when running scripts
what about running out of process numbers what happens then ?

Last edited by rob.rice; 01-22-2014 at 08:15 PM.
 
Old 01-22-2014, 08:43 PM   #17
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,482

Rep: Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob.rice View Post
yeha your right
can It be configured so that it dose not start a new instance for every process
Dunno. A thread is supposed to be very light weight (and I'll bet that most of them are sitting on a mutex waiting for an event to show up) so I'm not sure that it crossed anyone's mind to make that configurable. At some point, you need to keep track of what's going on and in some cases the logic is easier if you dedicate a thread to watch a specific process.

Quote:
programs like ls certainly don't need udev or another instance of a wrapper for udev
and what is the over head ( time wise ) in starting another instance of udev+consol-kit for each command when running scripts
You're getting a new thread in the console-kit-daemon which shouldn't have much to do with udevd. (I see 3 udevd processes running on my machine with no addition threads.) Threads are cheap, that's why you use them instead of fork-and-exec.

Quote:
what about running out of process numbers what happens then ?
You'd have to have 32K things running at the same time for that to happen. You'd probably notice your system slowing down at 20K.
 
Old 01-22-2014, 10:15 PM   #18
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,573
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035Reputation: 4035
Quote:
Originally Posted by genss View Post
(note: i know and don't care about security implications of running as root, its behind a firewall and no shady software allowed)
Seems to me that you actually don't know about the security implications, unless you run no browser or any other software accessing the net. A firewall will not prevent drive-by infections or malware aimed at Java, Flash or other browser plugins.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 01:19 AM   #19
rob.rice
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 784

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 104Reputation: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Dunno. A thread is supposed to be very light weight (and I'll bet that most of them are sitting on a mutex waiting for an event to show up) so I'm not sure that it crossed anyone's mind to make that configurable. At some point, you need to keep track of what's going on and in some cases the logic is easier if you dedicate a thread to watch a specific process.



You're getting a new thread in the console-kit-daemon which shouldn't have much to do with udevd. (I see 3 udevd processes running on my machine with no addition threads.) Threads are cheap, that's why you use them instead of fork-and-exec.

You'd have to have 32K things running at the same time for that to happen. You'd probably notice your system slowing down at 20K.
I'm up to process number 31440
the threads don't seem to die when the program they were opened for die they just keep piling up it's like 9 pages of consol-kit and 9 pages of udev running in htop

from reading the consol-kit DOCs it's a layer over udev

Last edited by rob.rice; 01-23-2014 at 01:23 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 03:27 AM   #20
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,482

Rep: Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421
What version of slackware are you running?

What does the command
Code:
ps -eLf | wc -l
output?

I'm running Slackware64 14.1 and I get 549 when I run that command (with XFCE as my window manager and 2 virtual machines running in the background).
 
Old 01-23-2014, 05:23 AM   #21
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 189

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Seems to me that you actually don't know about the security implications, unless you run no browser or any other software accessing the net. A firewall will not prevent drive-by infections or malware aimed at Java, Flash or other browser plugins.
yes i know
flash is a horrid thing and id be happy for it to die
and firefox is huge and does execute foreign code

i program every once in a while, so i use htop and even perf top
if anything started using the cpu too much, id notice

i also use wavemon to check if the wireless card started acting up again (it has minor power issues)
so that covers botnets and the like

in the years running slackware so far i haven't noticed anything even hinting of the system being compromised
then again i don't keep any important data on a computer
(people, don't read any of this as security advice. any of it at all)

to be honest i kinda miss the old XP viruses
3 random named processes backed up by 2 weird named executables
i think it was cute
for all the damage viruses do, they do show how many things are possible with operating systems
 
Old 01-23-2014, 05:31 AM   #22
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 189

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Dunno. A thread is supposed to be very light weight (and I'll bet that most of them are sitting on a mutex waiting for an event to show up) so I'm not sure that it crossed anyone's mind to make that configurable. At some point, you need to keep track of what's going on and in some cases the logic is easier if you dedicate a thread to watch a specific process.
threads in userspace linux are implemented using clone()
so shared between them is anything mmap'ed (with share flag), like libraries and idk maybe for IPC, files or something
what is not shared is the code segment, data segment and anything malloc'ed
(haven't checked some details on that, like about the code segment, but it should be like that)

shared libraries get mmaped in on exec() anyway by the loader

i could swear it ran a new process every time as i remember knowing back then to set up htop to not show threads
maybe they changed it, maybe i remember wrong

oh well

Last edited by genss; 01-23-2014 at 05:35 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 02:26 PM   #23
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,482

Rep: Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421Reputation: 421
See http://www.linuxforu.com/2011/08/lig...linux-threads/
 
Old 01-23-2014, 03:29 PM   #24
JWJones
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: Cascadia
Distribution: Slackware, LinuxBBQ, OpenBSD, Mac OSX
Posts: 723

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
When I installed Slackware 14.1 with Xfce, I omitted console-kit from the installation. Runs fine without it, but as ReaperX7 said "Without it you'd have to relog as root each time you'd want to reboot or shutdown the system." Not a big deal to me, and RAM/processes saved.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 03:32 PM   #25
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 685

Rep: Reputation: 279Reputation: 279Reputation: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by genss View Post
i also run as root so didn't notice anything missing
(note: i know and don't care about security implications of running as root, its behind a firewall and no shady software allowed)
I don't actually mean to contribute to hijacking a thread, but this tangent is interesting. What has me puzzled is why anyone would desire to run more or less continuously as root on Slackware? Unlike many distros you actually have a root account with a password and don't have to rely on "sudo". It is pretty effortless to login one time as root and choose a different look so that one can tell which graphic apps are root and which are user, and then login from then on as user and use "kdesu" or the gnome equivalent. (Sorry I can't recall it's name. Never liked Gnome and over time I like it even less)

Why even take a chance at such a risk when Slack makes it so easy to avoid it?
 
Old 01-24-2014, 04:54 AM   #26
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 189

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
although what you link is for the theoretical pthreads (linux gives threads new PIDs, unlike the article suggests) i do correct myself
(i read about pthreads a long time ago, so my bad)

pthreads share everything except the stack
still console-kit NEEDS to store per thread specific data (on the stack, as if it were to be done with malloc the malloced data would be shared across threads but not really useful to any thread but that what malloced it)

also the scheduler has to evaluate every process once per epoh
that is not much overhead but still

anyway i think spawning threads that do not ever exit to be a bad thing


PS i found this to be more detailed
 
Old 01-24-2014, 05:21 AM   #27
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 189

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Why even take a chance at such a risk when Slack makes it so easy to avoid it?
in my case the question is "what risk"
i do not have any sensitive data or i would protect it
and i like fiddling with advanced kernel thingies
(concrete example: i have a script to reset my wireless card when it goes nuts (the card, not just the connection), it uses modprobe)
if i just used my computer to play games and use firefox, id still have windows xp

to derail a bit more
i hate when people write programs assuming their users are idiots
like xmms2 that you need to run with --yes-run-as-root (something with feet too)
or worse 0ad that you (by that i mean I) have to set SUID to run

i knew there will be lots of people assuming i'm an idiot for running as root
understand that i use linux exclusively for... since warcraft 3 frozen throne came out
and i never had problems with viruses, maleware or other malicious code
(lies, i installed a newer ubuntu once)

to derail even more, i have a story about security:
so i installed fedora some time ago
after install i upgraded it and found one program not to work anymore
ok, i thought, il find out why
program used some other program that wouldn't start 'cuz its config file didn't upgrade properly (syntax changed a bit, breaking one line)
so i logged in as root (config was a system one) and went to fix it
god forbid i fix something, for selinux locked the whole system yelling "A FILE HAS CHANGED"
instead of reading whole books about how fedora does things, i installed slackware on that computer

and i still don't think slackware is less secure then fedora

edit: PS i think the author got good answers by a couple knowledgeable people

Last edited by genss; 01-24-2014 at 05:28 AM.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 05:26 AM   #28
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0, CRUX 3.1
Posts: 3,054
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWJones View Post
When I installed Slackware 14.1 with Xfce, I omitted console-kit from the installation. Runs fine without it, but as ReaperX7 said "Without it you'd have to relog as root each time you'd want to reboot or shutdown the system." Not a big deal to me, and RAM/processes saved.
The RAM/Process of ConsoleKit should technically only be a few KB at best with 0-1% process usage. It's a daemon service only, so it shouldn't even impact the system at all, if ever. It actually should hold one of the smaller footprints as it's only used during login, x-session startup, and logout/shutdown. On modern systems it practically invisible to the standard observer and you technically can't even base an accurate statement that removing/omitting it has an impact.

Unless you're on a system with less than 266MHz processing speed and less than 64MB of RAM, getting an accurate measure of ConsoleKit's impact is going to next to pointless.

My suggestion, it's a near-zero impact service daemon, so unless you're hellbent on locking out users from the reboot/shutdown init level services, leave the bloody thing alone.

The only reason ConsoleKit could have high usage would be multiple logins executing at once, so unless your system is in fact a server used by multiple users on a network, you might want to start looking into who and what could be generating logins or attempted connections to your PC.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Grub2/console-setup commands for console mode 132 x 43 without framebuffer LQ123 Debian 0 10-22-2013 09:44 AM
Why so many /usr/sbin/console-kit-daemon --no-daemon in htop? alarazr Linux - Newbie 2 07-09-2012 01:58 PM
[SOLVED] Not sure what "console-kit-daemon --no-daemon" means mark_alfred Linux - General 2 12-18-2011 04:59 PM
Who start this daemon: console-kit ? FeyFre Slackware 10 09-23-2011 11:23 AM
[SOLVED] Console-kit daemon spawns more than 60 child-processes pigkouinos Slackware 2 09-18-2011 03:07 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration