On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 04:59:44PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: [...] > > > systemd-udevd-642 [050] ..... 17.349832: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-665 [061] ..... 17.349834: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-675 [012] ..... 17.349835: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-675 [012] ..... 17.349853: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-642 [050] ..... 17.349861: __call_rcu_common: -> 0x0: __dentry_kill+0x140/0x180 <- 0x2 > > > systemd-udevd-675 [012] ..... 17.349873: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-665 [061] ..... 17.349879: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-665 [061] ..... 17.350007: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-665 [061] ..... 17.350011: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-665 [061] ..... 17.350080: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-665 [061] ..... 17.350175: __call_rcu_common: -> ____fput+0x0/0x10: task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 <- 0x0 > > > systemd-udevd-665 [061] ..... 17.350362: dev_change_name: --> renamed from eth0 > > > <snip> > > > > > > First delay: > > > > > > <snip> > > > systemd-udevd-645 [053] ..... 2.339024: __call_rcu_common: -> 0x0: __dentry_kill+0x140/0x180 <- 0x2 > > > kworker/0:3-546 [000] d..1. 6.329516: __call_rcu_common: -> 0x0: queue_rcu_work+0x2b/0x40 <- 0xffff8c70effe40a0 > > > <snip> > > > > > > __dentry_kill() function and after 4 seconds there is another one queue_rcu_work(). > > > I have checked the __dentry_kill() if it can do any sync talk with RCU but from the > > > first glance i do not see anything critical. But more attention is required. > > > > Can you log rcu_barrier() as well? It could be that the print is just a side > > effect of something else that is not being printed. > > > It has nothing to do with rcu_barrier() in my case. Also i have checked > the synchronize_rcu() it also works as expected, i.e. it is not a > blocking reason. > > Have you tried my config? Yes I am in the process of trying it. thanks, - Joel
