when startup delays become bugs

Lennart Poettering mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Thu May 16 18:39:07 UTC 2013

On Thu, 16.05.13 12:20, Chris Murphy (lists at colorremedies.com) wrote:

> There have been no crashes, so ext4 doesn't need fsck on every boot:
>           4.051s systemd-fsck-root.service
>            515ms
>            systemd-fsck at dev-disk-by\x2duuid-09c66d01\x2d8126\x2d39c2\x2db7b8\x2d25f14cbd35af.service

Well, but only fsck itself knows that and can determine this from the
superblock. Hence we have to start it first and it will then exit
quickly if the fs wasn't dirty.

Note that these times might be misleading: if fsck takes this long to
check the superblock and exit this might be a result of something else
which runs in parallel monopolizing CPU or IO (for example readahead),
and might not actually be fsck's own fault.

> and no oops, so this seems unnecessary:
>           1.092s abrt-uefioops.service


> and I'm not using LVM so these seem unnecessary:
>           2.783s lvm2-monitor.service
>            489ms systemd-udev-settle.service
>             15ms lvm2-lvmetad.service
> How do I determine what component to file a bug against? I guess I have to find the package that caused these .service files to be installed?

$ repoquery --qf="%{sourcerpm}" --whatprovides '*/lib/systemd/system/lvm2-monitor.service'

Please file a bug against the "lvm2" package. And make sure to add it to:


Hmm, on your machine, what does "systemctl show -p WantedBy -p
RequiredBy systemd-udev-settle.service" show? This will tell us which
package is actually responsible for pulling in



Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the devel mailing list