[From nobody Sat May 2 01:35:05 2026 Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Mar 2026 10:13:52 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2024-03-25) on buxtehude.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_INCLUDES_PACKAGE,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FOURLA, HAS_PACKAGE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,XMAILER_REPORTBUG autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 14; hammy, 150; neutral, 92; spammy, 0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--forky, 0.000-+--HTo:N*Debian, 0.000-+--H*Ad:N*Bug, 0.000-+--H*Ad:N*Tracking, 0.000-+--HTo:N*Bug Return-path: <SRS0=mkFb=BB=melix.org=kapouer@bounces.m4x.org> Received: from mx1.polytechnique.org ([129.104.30.34]:50873) by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP521R1__RSA_SHA512__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <SRS0=mkFb=BB=melix.org=kapouer@bounces.m4x.org>) id 1vwdo8-00DjGZ-01 for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 01 Mar 2026 10:13:52 +0000 Received: from lal (92-184-108-115.mobile.fr.orangecustomers.net [92.184.108.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ssl.polytechnique.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 766571A342; Sun, 1 Mar 2026 11:13:50 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=melix.org; s=svoboda; t=1772360030; bh=467VUTt+imG63vemNf/QyGn7al1loyU41XW4NOmJ3Z8=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date; b=i4n+9qIfpw1P+bCF1ClNR3qNENEtudlNiTVL8LAyREwoUlCDrpljMwB0ZHud/RUp9 g8fwpvpO62C6E/6zwHLwzUxiWvqX+sD/YdqMkr+sgpUpYKgrvqzTZUL4DRSfe5TwxE lKeC+zqbj+mOEr4JrqulmWsYbT42FV1iEotizxyE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=melix.org; s=svoboda; t=1772360030; bh=467VUTt+imG63vemNf/QyGn7al1loyU41XW4NOmJ3Z8=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date; b=i4n+9qIfpw1P+bCF1ClNR3qNENEtudlNiTVL8LAyREwoUlCDrpljMwB0ZHud/RUp9 g8fwpvpO62C6E/6zwHLwzUxiWvqX+sD/YdqMkr+sgpUpYKgrvqzTZUL4DRSfe5TwxE lKeC+zqbj+mOEr4JrqulmWsYbT42FV1iEotizxyE= Received: by lal (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DB7322800A8; Sun, 01 Mar 2026 11:13:49 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: =?utf-8?b?SsOpcsOpbXkgTGFs?= <kapouer@melix.org> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org> Subject: impression: High udiskd usage Message-ID: <177236002986.186403.2512530180310939025.reportbug@lal.local> X-Mailer: reportbug 13.2.0 Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 11:13:49 +0100 X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP at svoboda.polytechnique.org (Sun Mar 1 11:13:50 2026 +0100 (CET)) X-Org-Mail: jeremy.lal.1997@polytechnique.org Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org Package: impression Version: 3.5.5-1 Severity: normal Hi, I just gave impression a try, and the scrolling in the proposed list felt very slow. Checking CPU usage, I saw that udiskd was at 25% CPU - this seems wrong, it's as if impression was polling it in a busy loop. -- System Information: Debian Release: forky/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.18.13+deb14-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages impression depends on: ii dconf-gsettings-backend [gsettings-backend] 0.49.0-4 ii libadwaita-1-0 1.9~beta-2 ii libc6 2.42-13 ii libcairo2 1.18.4-3 ii libgcc-s1 15.2.0-14 ii libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0 2.44.5+dfsg-4 ii libglib2.0-0t64 2.87.2-3 ii libgtk-4-1 4.21.5+ds-5 ii libpango-1.0-0 1.57.0-1 ii libssl3t64 3.5.5-1 impression recommends no packages. impression suggests no packages. -- no debconf information ]