| Message ID | 20200721141750.1793-1-josef@toxicpanda.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: use nofs for device sysfs creation | expand |
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:17:50AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > --- a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c > @@ -1278,7 +1278,9 @@ int btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices, > { > int error = 0; > struct btrfs_device *dev; > + unsigned long nofs_flag; unsigned int Fixed and added to misc-next, thanks.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c index 38c0b95e0e7f..1e0c215bfbcf 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c @@ -1278,7 +1278,9 @@ int btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices, { int error = 0; struct btrfs_device *dev; + unsigned long nofs_flag; + nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save(); list_for_each_entry(dev, &fs_devices->devices, dev_list) { if (one_device && one_device != dev) @@ -1306,6 +1308,7 @@ int btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices, break; } } + memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag); return error; }
Dave hit this splat during testing btrfs/078 ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.8.0-rc6-default+ #1191 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kswapd0/75 is trying to acquire lock: ffffa040e9d04ff8 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8b0c8040 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 fs_reclaim_acquire.part.0+0x25/0x30 __kmalloc_track_caller+0x49/0x330 kstrdup+0x2e/0x60 __kernfs_new_node.constprop.0+0x44/0x250 kernfs_new_node+0x25/0x50 kernfs_create_link+0x34/0xa0 sysfs_do_create_link_sd+0x5e/0xd0 btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir+0x65/0x100 [btrfs] btrfs_init_new_device+0x44c/0x12b0 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0xc3c/0x25c0 [btrfs] ksys_ioctl+0x68/0xa0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x50/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 __mutex_lock+0xa0/0xaf0 btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x137/0x3e0 [btrfs] find_free_extent+0xb44/0xfb0 [btrfs] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x9b/0x180 [btrfs] btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xc1/0x350 [btrfs] alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60 [btrfs] __btrfs_cow_block+0x143/0x7a0 [btrfs] btrfs_cow_block+0x15f/0x310 [btrfs] push_leaf_right+0x150/0x240 [btrfs] split_leaf+0x3cd/0x6d0 [btrfs] btrfs_search_slot+0xd14/0xf70 [btrfs] btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x64/0xc0 [btrfs] __btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_items+0xb2/0x840 [btrfs] btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x10e/0x1d0 [btrfs] btrfs_work_helper+0x2f9/0x650 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x22c/0x600 worker_thread+0x50/0x3b0 kthread+0x137/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: check_prev_add+0x98/0xa20 validate_chain+0xa8c/0x2a00 __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 __mutex_lock+0xa0/0xaf0 __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] btrfs_evict_inode+0x3bf/0x560 [btrfs] evict+0xd6/0x1c0 dispose_list+0x48/0x70 prune_icache_sb+0x54/0x80 super_cache_scan+0x121/0x1a0 do_shrink_slab+0x175/0x420 shrink_slab+0xb1/0x2e0 shrink_node+0x192/0x600 balance_pgdat+0x31f/0x750 kswapd+0x206/0x510 kthread+0x137/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &delayed_node->mutex --> &fs_info->chunk_mutex --> fs_reclaim Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(fs_reclaim); lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); lock(fs_reclaim); lock(&delayed_node->mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by kswapd0/75: #0: ffffffff8b0c8040 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 #1: ffffffff8b0b50b8 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x54/0x2e0 #2: ffffa040e057c0e8 (&type->s_umount_key#26){++++}-{3:3}, at: trylock_super+0x16/0x50 stack backtrace: CPU: 2 PID: 75 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc6-default+ #1191 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.12.0-59-gc9ba527-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x78/0xa0 check_noncircular+0x16f/0x190 check_prev_add+0x98/0xa20 validate_chain+0xa8c/0x2a00 __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] __mutex_lock+0xa0/0xaf0 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] ? __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] ? lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 ? btrfs_evict_inode+0x138/0x560 [btrfs] ? btrfs_evict_inode+0x2fe/0x560 [btrfs] ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] btrfs_evict_inode+0x3bf/0x560 [btrfs] evict+0xd6/0x1c0 dispose_list+0x48/0x70 prune_icache_sb+0x54/0x80 super_cache_scan+0x121/0x1a0 do_shrink_slab+0x175/0x420 shrink_slab+0xb1/0x2e0 shrink_node+0x192/0x600 balance_pgdat+0x31f/0x750 kswapd+0x206/0x510 ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3e/0x50 ? finish_wait+0x90/0x90 ? balance_pgdat+0x750/0x750 kthread+0x137/0x150 ? kthread_stop+0x2a0/0x2a0 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 This is because we're holding the chunk_mutex while adding this device and adding its sysfs entries. We actually hold different locks in different places when calling this function, the dev_replace semaphore for instance in dev replace, so instead of moving this call around simply wrap it's operations in nofs. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> --- fs/btrfs/sysfs.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)