+++ /dev/null
-From a0f0cf8341e34e5d2265bfd3a7ad68342da1e2aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:26:09 +0000
-Subject: btrfs: get rid of warning on transaction commit when using flushoncommit
-
-From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
-
-commit a0f0cf8341e34e5d2265bfd3a7ad68342da1e2aa upstream.
-
-When using the flushoncommit mount option, during almost every transaction
-commit we trigger a warning from __writeback_inodes_sb_nr():
-
- $ cat fs/fs-writeback.c:
- (...)
- static void __writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *sb, ...
- {
- (...)
- WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
- (...)
- }
- (...)
-
-The trace produced in dmesg looks like the following:
-
- [947.473890] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 930 at fs/fs-writeback.c:2610 __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
- [947.481623] Modules linked in: nfsd nls_cp437 cifs asn1_decoder cifs_arc4 fscache cifs_md4 ipmi_ssif
- [947.489571] CPU: 5 PID: 930 Comm: btrfs-transacti Not tainted 95.16.3-srb-asrock-00001-g36437ad63879 #186
- [947.497969] RIP: 0010:__writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
- [947.502097] Code: 24 10 4c 89 44 24 18 c6 (...)
- [947.519760] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000777e10 EFLAGS: 00010246
- [947.523818] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000963300 RCX: 0000000000000000
- [947.529765] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000fa51 RDI: ffffc90000777e50
- [947.535740] RBP: ffff888101628a90 R08: ffff888100955800 R09: ffff888100956000
- [947.541701] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888100963488
- [947.547645] R13: ffff888100963000 R14: ffff888112fb7200 R15: ffff888100963460
- [947.553621] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88841fd40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
- [947.560537] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
- [947.565122] CR2: 0000000008be50c4 CR3: 000000000220c000 CR4: 00000000001006e0
- [947.571072] Call Trace:
- [947.572354] <TASK>
- [947.573266] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x1f1/0x998
- [947.576785] ? start_transaction+0x3ab/0x44e
- [947.579867] ? schedule_timeout+0x8a/0xdd
- [947.582716] transaction_kthread+0xe9/0x156
- [947.585721] ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction.isra.0+0x407/0x407
- [947.590104] kthread+0x131/0x139
- [947.592168] ? set_kthread_struct+0x32/0x32
- [947.595174] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
- [947.597561] </TASK>
- [947.598553] ---[ end trace 644721052755541c ]---
-
-This is because we started using writeback_inodes_sb() to flush delalloc
-when committing a transaction (when using -o flushoncommit), in order to
-avoid deadlocks with filesystem freeze operations. This change was made
-by commit ce8ea7cc6eb313 ("btrfs: don't call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots
-in flushoncommit"). After that change we started producing that warning,
-and every now and then a user reports this since the warning happens too
-often, it spams dmesg/syslog, and a user is unsure if this reflects any
-problem that might compromise the filesystem's reliability.
-
-We can not just lock the sb->s_umount semaphore before calling
-writeback_inodes_sb(), because that would at least deadlock with
-filesystem freezing, since at fs/super.c:freeze_super() sync_filesystem()
-is called while we are holding that semaphore in write mode, and that can
-trigger a transaction commit, resulting in a deadlock. It would also
-trigger the same type of deadlock in the unmount path. Possibly, it could
-also introduce some other locking dependencies that lockdep would report.
-
-To fix this call try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() instead of
-writeback_inodes_sb(), because that will try to read lock sb->s_umount
-and then will only call writeback_inodes_sb() if it was able to lock it.
-This is fine because the cases where it can't read lock sb->s_umount
-are during a filesystem unmount or during a filesystem freeze - in those
-cases sb->s_umount is write locked and sync_filesystem() is called, which
-calls writeback_inodes_sb(). In other words, in all cases where we can't
-take a read lock on sb->s_umount, writeback is already being triggered
-elsewhere.
-
-An alternative would be to call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() with a
-number of pages different from LONG_MAX, for example matching the number
-of delalloc bytes we currently have, in which case we would end up
-starting all delalloc with filemap_fdatawrite_wbc() and not with an
-async flush via filemap_flush() - that is only possible after the rather
-recent commit e076ab2a2ca70a ("btrfs: shrink delalloc pages instead of
-full inodes"). However that creates a whole new can of worms due to new
-lock dependencies, which lockdep complains, like for example:
-
-[ 8948.247280] ======================================================
-[ 8948.247823] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
-[ 8948.248353] 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1 Not tainted
-[ 8948.248786] ------------------------------------------------------
-[ 8948.249320] kworker/u16:18/933570 is trying to acquire lock:
-[ 8948.249812] ffff9b3de1591690 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.250638]
- but task is already holding lock:
-[ 8948.251140] ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.252018]
- which lock already depends on the new lock.
-
-[ 8948.252710]
- the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-[ 8948.253343]
- -> #2 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
-[ 8948.253950] __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
-[ 8948.254354] start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.254859] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.255408] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.255942] btrfs_mksubvol+0x380/0x570 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.256406] btrfs_mksnapshot+0x81/0xb0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.256870] __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x17f/0x190 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.257413] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xbb/0x140 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.257961] btrfs_ioctl+0x1196/0x3630 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.258418] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
-[ 8948.258793] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
-[ 8948.259146] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-[ 8948.259709]
- -> #1 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
-[ 8948.260330] __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
-[ 8948.260692] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.261234] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.261766] btrfs_set_free_space_cache_v1_active+0x38/0x60 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.262379] btrfs_start_pre_rw_mount+0x119/0x180 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.262909] open_ctree+0x1511/0x171e [btrfs]
-[ 8948.263359] btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x12/0xde [btrfs]
-[ 8948.263863] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
-[ 8948.264242] vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
-[ 8948.264594] vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0xb0
-[ 8948.265017] btrfs_mount+0x11d/0x3a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.265462] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
-[ 8948.265851] vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
-[ 8948.266203] path_mount+0x2d4/0xbe0
-[ 8948.266554] __x64_sys_mount+0x103/0x140
-[ 8948.266940] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
-[ 8948.267300] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-[ 8948.267790]
- -> #0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}:
-[ 8948.268322] __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
-[ 8948.268733] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
-[ 8948.269092] start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.269591] find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.270087] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.270588] cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.271051] btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.271586] writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.272071] __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.272579] extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.273113] extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.273573] do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
-[ 8948.273942] filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
-[ 8948.274371] start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.274876] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.275417] flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.275863] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.276438] process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
-[ 8948.276829] worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
-[ 8948.277189] kthread+0xf2/0x120
-[ 8948.277506] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-[ 8948.277868]
- other info that might help us debug this:
-
-[ 8948.278548] Chain exists of:
- sb_internal#2 --> &fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex --> &root->delalloc_mutex
-
-[ 8948.279601] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
-
-[ 8948.280102] CPU0 CPU1
-[ 8948.280508] ---- ----
-[ 8948.280915] lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
-[ 8948.281271] lock(&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex);
-[ 8948.281915] lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
-[ 8948.282487] lock(sb_internal#2);
-[ 8948.282800]
- *** DEADLOCK ***
-
-[ 8948.283333] 4 locks held by kworker/u16:18/933570:
-[ 8948.283750] #0: ffff9b3dc00a9d48 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
-[ 8948.284609] #1: ffffa90349dafe70 ((work_completion)(&fs_info->async_data_reclaim_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
-[ 8948.285637] #2: ffff9b3e14db5040 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.286674] #3: ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.287596]
- stack backtrace:
-[ 8948.287975] CPU: 3 PID: 933570 Comm: kworker/u16:18 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1
-[ 8948.288677] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
-[ 8948.289649] Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs]
-[ 8948.290298] Call Trace:
-[ 8948.290517] <TASK>
-[ 8948.290700] dump_stack_lvl+0x59/0x73
-[ 8948.291026] check_noncircular+0xf3/0x110
-[ 8948.291375] ? start_transaction+0x228/0x6e0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.291826] __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
-[ 8948.292241] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
-[ 8948.292714] ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.293241] ? lock_is_held_type+0xea/0x140
-[ 8948.293601] start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.294055] ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.294518] find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.294957] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x40
-[ 8948.295312] ? btrfs_get_alloc_profile+0x124/0x290 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.295813] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.296270] cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.296691] btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.297175] ? find_lock_delalloc_range+0x247/0x270 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.297678] writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.298123] __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.298570] extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.299061] extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.299495] do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
-[ 8948.299817] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xd/0x110
-[ 8948.300160] ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
-[ 8948.300494] filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
-[ 8948.300874] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4b/0xa0
-[ 8948.301243] start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.301706] ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
-[ 8948.302055] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.302564] flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.302970] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.303510] process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
-[ 8948.303860] ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
-[ 8948.304221] worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
-[ 8948.304543] ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
-[ 8948.304904] kthread+0xf2/0x120
-[ 8948.305184] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
-[ 8948.305598] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-[ 8948.305921] </TASK>
-
-It all comes from the fact that btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() takes the
-delalloc_root_mutex, in the transaction commit path we are holding a
-read lock on one of the superblock's freeze semaphores (via
-sb_start_intwrite()), the async reclaim task can also do a call to
-btrfs_start_delalloc_roots(), which ends up triggering writeback with
-calls to filemap_fdatawrite_wbc(), resulting in extent allocation which
-in turn can call btrfs_start_transaction(), which will result in taking
-the freeze semaphore via sb_start_intwrite(), forming a nasty dependency
-on all those locks which can be taken in different orders by different
-code paths.
-
-So just adopt the simple approach of calling try_to_writeback_inodes_sb()
-at btrfs_start_delalloc_flush().
-
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20220130005258.GA7465@cuci.nl/
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/43acc426-d683-d1b6-729d-c6bc4a2fff4d@gmail.com/
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/6833930a-08d7-6fbc-0141-eb9cdfd6bb4d@gmail.com/
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20190322041731.GF16651@hungrycats.org/
-Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
-Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
-[ add more link reports ]
-Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
-Signed-off-by: Hugo SIMELIERE <hsimeliere.opensource@witekio.com>
-Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
----
- fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 12 ++++++++++--
- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
-
---- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
-+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
-@@ -2021,16 +2021,24 @@ static inline int btrfs_start_delalloc_f
- struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = trans->fs_info;
-
- /*
-- * We use writeback_inodes_sb here because if we used
-+ * We use try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() here because if we used
- * btrfs_start_delalloc_roots we would deadlock with fs freeze.
- * Currently are holding the fs freeze lock, if we do an async flush
- * we'll do btrfs_join_transaction() and deadlock because we need to
- * wait for the fs freeze lock. Using the direct flushing we benefit
- * from already being in a transaction and our join_transaction doesn't
- * have to re-take the fs freeze lock.
-+ *
-+ * Note that try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() will only trigger writeback
-+ * if it can read lock sb->s_umount. It will always be able to lock it,
-+ * except when the filesystem is being unmounted or being frozen, but in
-+ * those cases sync_filesystem() is called, which results in calling
-+ * writeback_inodes_sb() while holding a write lock on sb->s_umount.
-+ * Note that we don't call writeback_inodes_sb() directly, because it
-+ * will emit a warning if sb->s_umount is not locked.
- */
- if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, FLUSHONCOMMIT)) {
-- writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
-+ try_to_writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
- } else {
- struct btrfs_pending_snapshot *pending;
- struct list_head *head = &trans->transaction->pending_snapshots;
acpi-battery-fix-possible-crash-when-unregistering-a.patch
ext4-fix-inode-tree-inconsistency-caused-by-enomem.patch
vhost-scsi-null-ptr-dereference-in-vhost_scsi_get_req.patch
-btrfs-get-rid-of-warning-on-transaction-commit-when-using-flushoncommit.patch
clk-imx6ul-fix-failed-to-get-parent-error.patch
+++ /dev/null
-From a0f0cf8341e34e5d2265bfd3a7ad68342da1e2aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:26:09 +0000
-Subject: btrfs: get rid of warning on transaction commit when using flushoncommit
-
-From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
-
-commit a0f0cf8341e34e5d2265bfd3a7ad68342da1e2aa upstream.
-
-When using the flushoncommit mount option, during almost every transaction
-commit we trigger a warning from __writeback_inodes_sb_nr():
-
- $ cat fs/fs-writeback.c:
- (...)
- static void __writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *sb, ...
- {
- (...)
- WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
- (...)
- }
- (...)
-
-The trace produced in dmesg looks like the following:
-
- [947.473890] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 930 at fs/fs-writeback.c:2610 __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
- [947.481623] Modules linked in: nfsd nls_cp437 cifs asn1_decoder cifs_arc4 fscache cifs_md4 ipmi_ssif
- [947.489571] CPU: 5 PID: 930 Comm: btrfs-transacti Not tainted 95.16.3-srb-asrock-00001-g36437ad63879 #186
- [947.497969] RIP: 0010:__writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
- [947.502097] Code: 24 10 4c 89 44 24 18 c6 (...)
- [947.519760] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000777e10 EFLAGS: 00010246
- [947.523818] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000963300 RCX: 0000000000000000
- [947.529765] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000fa51 RDI: ffffc90000777e50
- [947.535740] RBP: ffff888101628a90 R08: ffff888100955800 R09: ffff888100956000
- [947.541701] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888100963488
- [947.547645] R13: ffff888100963000 R14: ffff888112fb7200 R15: ffff888100963460
- [947.553621] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88841fd40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
- [947.560537] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
- [947.565122] CR2: 0000000008be50c4 CR3: 000000000220c000 CR4: 00000000001006e0
- [947.571072] Call Trace:
- [947.572354] <TASK>
- [947.573266] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x1f1/0x998
- [947.576785] ? start_transaction+0x3ab/0x44e
- [947.579867] ? schedule_timeout+0x8a/0xdd
- [947.582716] transaction_kthread+0xe9/0x156
- [947.585721] ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction.isra.0+0x407/0x407
- [947.590104] kthread+0x131/0x139
- [947.592168] ? set_kthread_struct+0x32/0x32
- [947.595174] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
- [947.597561] </TASK>
- [947.598553] ---[ end trace 644721052755541c ]---
-
-This is because we started using writeback_inodes_sb() to flush delalloc
-when committing a transaction (when using -o flushoncommit), in order to
-avoid deadlocks with filesystem freeze operations. This change was made
-by commit ce8ea7cc6eb313 ("btrfs: don't call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots
-in flushoncommit"). After that change we started producing that warning,
-and every now and then a user reports this since the warning happens too
-often, it spams dmesg/syslog, and a user is unsure if this reflects any
-problem that might compromise the filesystem's reliability.
-
-We can not just lock the sb->s_umount semaphore before calling
-writeback_inodes_sb(), because that would at least deadlock with
-filesystem freezing, since at fs/super.c:freeze_super() sync_filesystem()
-is called while we are holding that semaphore in write mode, and that can
-trigger a transaction commit, resulting in a deadlock. It would also
-trigger the same type of deadlock in the unmount path. Possibly, it could
-also introduce some other locking dependencies that lockdep would report.
-
-To fix this call try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() instead of
-writeback_inodes_sb(), because that will try to read lock sb->s_umount
-and then will only call writeback_inodes_sb() if it was able to lock it.
-This is fine because the cases where it can't read lock sb->s_umount
-are during a filesystem unmount or during a filesystem freeze - in those
-cases sb->s_umount is write locked and sync_filesystem() is called, which
-calls writeback_inodes_sb(). In other words, in all cases where we can't
-take a read lock on sb->s_umount, writeback is already being triggered
-elsewhere.
-
-An alternative would be to call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() with a
-number of pages different from LONG_MAX, for example matching the number
-of delalloc bytes we currently have, in which case we would end up
-starting all delalloc with filemap_fdatawrite_wbc() and not with an
-async flush via filemap_flush() - that is only possible after the rather
-recent commit e076ab2a2ca70a ("btrfs: shrink delalloc pages instead of
-full inodes"). However that creates a whole new can of worms due to new
-lock dependencies, which lockdep complains, like for example:
-
-[ 8948.247280] ======================================================
-[ 8948.247823] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
-[ 8948.248353] 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1 Not tainted
-[ 8948.248786] ------------------------------------------------------
-[ 8948.249320] kworker/u16:18/933570 is trying to acquire lock:
-[ 8948.249812] ffff9b3de1591690 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.250638]
- but task is already holding lock:
-[ 8948.251140] ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.252018]
- which lock already depends on the new lock.
-
-[ 8948.252710]
- the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-[ 8948.253343]
- -> #2 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
-[ 8948.253950] __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
-[ 8948.254354] start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.254859] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.255408] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.255942] btrfs_mksubvol+0x380/0x570 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.256406] btrfs_mksnapshot+0x81/0xb0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.256870] __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x17f/0x190 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.257413] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xbb/0x140 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.257961] btrfs_ioctl+0x1196/0x3630 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.258418] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
-[ 8948.258793] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
-[ 8948.259146] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-[ 8948.259709]
- -> #1 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
-[ 8948.260330] __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
-[ 8948.260692] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.261234] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.261766] btrfs_set_free_space_cache_v1_active+0x38/0x60 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.262379] btrfs_start_pre_rw_mount+0x119/0x180 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.262909] open_ctree+0x1511/0x171e [btrfs]
-[ 8948.263359] btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x12/0xde [btrfs]
-[ 8948.263863] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
-[ 8948.264242] vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
-[ 8948.264594] vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0xb0
-[ 8948.265017] btrfs_mount+0x11d/0x3a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.265462] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
-[ 8948.265851] vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
-[ 8948.266203] path_mount+0x2d4/0xbe0
-[ 8948.266554] __x64_sys_mount+0x103/0x140
-[ 8948.266940] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
-[ 8948.267300] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-[ 8948.267790]
- -> #0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}:
-[ 8948.268322] __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
-[ 8948.268733] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
-[ 8948.269092] start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.269591] find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.270087] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.270588] cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.271051] btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.271586] writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.272071] __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.272579] extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.273113] extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.273573] do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
-[ 8948.273942] filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
-[ 8948.274371] start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.274876] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.275417] flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.275863] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.276438] process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
-[ 8948.276829] worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
-[ 8948.277189] kthread+0xf2/0x120
-[ 8948.277506] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-[ 8948.277868]
- other info that might help us debug this:
-
-[ 8948.278548] Chain exists of:
- sb_internal#2 --> &fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex --> &root->delalloc_mutex
-
-[ 8948.279601] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
-
-[ 8948.280102] CPU0 CPU1
-[ 8948.280508] ---- ----
-[ 8948.280915] lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
-[ 8948.281271] lock(&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex);
-[ 8948.281915] lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
-[ 8948.282487] lock(sb_internal#2);
-[ 8948.282800]
- *** DEADLOCK ***
-
-[ 8948.283333] 4 locks held by kworker/u16:18/933570:
-[ 8948.283750] #0: ffff9b3dc00a9d48 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
-[ 8948.284609] #1: ffffa90349dafe70 ((work_completion)(&fs_info->async_data_reclaim_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
-[ 8948.285637] #2: ffff9b3e14db5040 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.286674] #3: ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.287596]
- stack backtrace:
-[ 8948.287975] CPU: 3 PID: 933570 Comm: kworker/u16:18 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1
-[ 8948.288677] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
-[ 8948.289649] Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs]
-[ 8948.290298] Call Trace:
-[ 8948.290517] <TASK>
-[ 8948.290700] dump_stack_lvl+0x59/0x73
-[ 8948.291026] check_noncircular+0xf3/0x110
-[ 8948.291375] ? start_transaction+0x228/0x6e0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.291826] __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
-[ 8948.292241] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
-[ 8948.292714] ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.293241] ? lock_is_held_type+0xea/0x140
-[ 8948.293601] start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.294055] ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.294518] find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.294957] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x40
-[ 8948.295312] ? btrfs_get_alloc_profile+0x124/0x290 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.295813] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.296270] cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.296691] btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.297175] ? find_lock_delalloc_range+0x247/0x270 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.297678] writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.298123] __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.298570] extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.299061] extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.299495] do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
-[ 8948.299817] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xd/0x110
-[ 8948.300160] ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
-[ 8948.300494] filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
-[ 8948.300874] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4b/0xa0
-[ 8948.301243] start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.301706] ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
-[ 8948.302055] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.302564] flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.302970] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
-[ 8948.303510] process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
-[ 8948.303860] ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
-[ 8948.304221] worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
-[ 8948.304543] ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
-[ 8948.304904] kthread+0xf2/0x120
-[ 8948.305184] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
-[ 8948.305598] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-[ 8948.305921] </TASK>
-
-It all comes from the fact that btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() takes the
-delalloc_root_mutex, in the transaction commit path we are holding a
-read lock on one of the superblock's freeze semaphores (via
-sb_start_intwrite()), the async reclaim task can also do a call to
-btrfs_start_delalloc_roots(), which ends up triggering writeback with
-calls to filemap_fdatawrite_wbc(), resulting in extent allocation which
-in turn can call btrfs_start_transaction(), which will result in taking
-the freeze semaphore via sb_start_intwrite(), forming a nasty dependency
-on all those locks which can be taken in different orders by different
-code paths.
-
-So just adopt the simple approach of calling try_to_writeback_inodes_sb()
-at btrfs_start_delalloc_flush().
-
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20220130005258.GA7465@cuci.nl/
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/43acc426-d683-d1b6-729d-c6bc4a2fff4d@gmail.com/
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/6833930a-08d7-6fbc-0141-eb9cdfd6bb4d@gmail.com/
-Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20190322041731.GF16651@hungrycats.org/
-Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
-Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
-[ add more link reports ]
-Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
-Signed-off-by: Hugo SIMELIERE <hsimeliere.opensource@witekio.com>
-Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
----
- fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 12 ++++++++++--
- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
-
---- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
-+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
-@@ -1893,16 +1893,24 @@ static inline int btrfs_start_delalloc_f
- struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = trans->fs_info;
-
- /*
-- * We use writeback_inodes_sb here because if we used
-+ * We use try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() here because if we used
- * btrfs_start_delalloc_roots we would deadlock with fs freeze.
- * Currently are holding the fs freeze lock, if we do an async flush
- * we'll do btrfs_join_transaction() and deadlock because we need to
- * wait for the fs freeze lock. Using the direct flushing we benefit
- * from already being in a transaction and our join_transaction doesn't
- * have to re-take the fs freeze lock.
-+ *
-+ * Note that try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() will only trigger writeback
-+ * if it can read lock sb->s_umount. It will always be able to lock it,
-+ * except when the filesystem is being unmounted or being frozen, but in
-+ * those cases sync_filesystem() is called, which results in calling
-+ * writeback_inodes_sb() while holding a write lock on sb->s_umount.
-+ * Note that we don't call writeback_inodes_sb() directly, because it
-+ * will emit a warning if sb->s_umount is not locked.
- */
- if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, FLUSHONCOMMIT)) {
-- writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
-+ try_to_writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
- } else {
- struct btrfs_pending_snapshot *pending;
- struct list_head *head = &trans->transaction->pending_snapshots;
acpi-battery-simplify-battery-hook-locking.patch
acpi-battery-fix-possible-crash-when-unregistering-a.patch
ext4-fix-inode-tree-inconsistency-caused-by-enomem.patch
-btrfs-get-rid-of-warning-on-transaction-commit-when-using-flushoncommit.patch
clk-imx6ul-fix-failed-to-get-parent-error.patch
projects / thirdparty / kernel / stable-queue.git / commitdiff
