btrfs: don't prematurely free work in run_ordered_work()

btrfs: don't prematurely free work in run_ordered_work()

We hit the following very strange deadlock on a system with Btrfs on a
loop device backed by another Btrfs filesystem:

1. The top (loop device) filesystem queues an async_cow work item from
   cow_file_range_async(). We'll call this work X.
2. Worker thread A starts work X (normal_work_helper()).
3. Worker thread A executes the ordered work for the top filesystem
   (run_ordered_work()).
4. Worker thread A finishes the ordered work for work X and frees X
   (work->ordered_free()).
5. Worker thread A executes another ordered work and gets blocked on I/O
   to the bottom filesystem (still in run_ordered_work()).
6. Meanwhile, the bottom filesystem allocates and queues an async_cow
   work item which happens to be the recently-freed X.
7. The workqueue code sees that X is already being executed by worker
   thread A, so it schedules X to be executed _after_ worker thread A
   finishes (see the find_worker_executing_work() call in
   process_one_work()).

Now, the top filesystem is waiting for I/O on the bottom filesystem, but
the bottom filesystem is waiting for the top filesystem to finish, so we
deadlock.

This happens because we are breaking the workqueue assumption that a
work item cannot be recycled while it still depends on other work. Fix
it by waiting to free the work item until we are done with all of the
related ordered work.

P.S.:

One might ask why the workqueue code doesn't try to detect a recycled
work item. It actually does try by checking whether the work item has
the same work function (find_worker_executing_work()), but in our case
the function is the same. This is the only key that the workqueue code
has available to compare, short of adding an additional, layer-violating
"custom key". Considering that we're the only ones that have ever hit
this, we should just play by the rules.

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to create a minimal reproducer other
than our full container setup using a compress-force=zstd filesystem on
top of another compress-force=zstd filesystem.

Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>