btrfs: move leaf search logic out of btrfs_search_slot()

There's quite a significant amount of code for doing the key search for a
leaf at btrfs_search_slot(), with a couple labels and gotos in it,

btrfs: move leaf search logic out of btrfs_search_slot()

There's quite a significant amount of code for doing the key search for a
leaf at btrfs_search_slot(), with a couple labels and gotos in it, plus
btrfs_search_slot() is already big enough.

So move the logic that does the key search on a leaf into a new helper
function. This makes it better organized, removing the need for the labels
and the gotos, as well as reducing the indentation level and the size of
btrfs_search_slot().

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: remove useless condition check before splitting leaf

When inserting a key, we check if the write_lock_level is less than 1,
and if so we set it to 1, release the path and retry the tree trave

btrfs: remove useless condition check before splitting leaf

When inserting a key, we check if the write_lock_level is less than 1,
and if so we set it to 1, release the path and retry the tree traversal.

However that is unnecessary, because when ins_len is greater than 0, we
know that write_lock_level can never be less than 1.

The logic to retry is also buggy, because in case ins_len was decremented,
due to an exact key match and the search is not meant for item extension
(path->search_for_extension is 0), we retry without incrementing ins_len,
which would make the next retry decrement it again by the same amount.

So remove the check for write_lock_level being less than 1 and add an
assertion to assert it's always >= 1.

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: try to unlock parent nodes earlier when inserting a key

When inserting a new key, we release the write lock on the leaf's parent
only after doing the binary search on the leaf. This is becaus

btrfs: try to unlock parent nodes earlier when inserting a key

When inserting a new key, we release the write lock on the leaf's parent
only after doing the binary search on the leaf. This is because if the
key ends up at slot 0, we will have to update the key at slot 0 of the
parent node. The same reasoning applies to any other upper level nodes
when their slot is 0. We also need to keep the parent locked in case the
leaf does not have enough free space to insert the new key/item, because
in that case we will split the leaf and we will need to add a new key to
the parent due to a new leaf resulting from the split operation.

However if the leaf has enough space for the new key and the key does not
end up at slot 0 of the leaf we could release our write lock on the parent
before doing the binary search on the leaf to figure out the destination
slot. That leads to reducing the amount of time other tasks are blocked
waiting to lock the parent, therefore increasing parallelism when there
are other tasks that are trying to access other leaves accessible through
the same parent. This also applies to other upper nodes besides the
immediate parent, when their slot is 0, since we keep locks on them until
we figure out if the leaf slot is slot 0 or not.

In fact, having the key ending at up slot 0 when is rare. Typically it
only happens when the key is less than or equals to the smallest, the
"left most", key of the entire btree, during a split attempt when we try
to push to the right sibling leaf or when the caller just wants to update
the item of an existing key. It's also very common that a leaf has enough
space to insert a new key, since after a split we move about half of the
keys from one into the new leaf.

So unlock the parent, and any other upper level nodes, when during a key
insertion we notice the key is greater then the first key in the leaf and
the leaf has enough free space. After unlocking the upper level nodes, do
the binary search using a low boundary of slot 1 and not slot 0, to figure
out the slot where the key will be inserted (or where the key already is
in case it exists and the caller wants to modify its item data).
This extra comparison, with the first key, is cheap and the key is very
likely already in a cache line because it immediately follows the header
of the extent buffer and we have recently read the level field of the
header (which in fact is the last field of the header).

The following fs_mark test was run on a non-debug kernel (debian's default
kernel config), with a 12 cores intel CPU, and using a NVMe device:

$ cat run-fsmark.sh
#!/bin/bash

DEV=/dev/nvme0n1
MNT=/mnt/nvme0n1
MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o ssd"
MKFS_OPTIONS="-O no-holes -R free-space-tree"
FILES=100000
THREADS=$(nproc --all)
FILE_SIZE=0

echo "performance" | \
tee /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor

mkfs.btrfs -f $MKFS_OPTIONS $DEV
mount $MOUNT_OPTIONS $DEV $MNT

OPTS="-S 0 -L 10 -n $FILES -s $FILE_SIZE -t $THREADS -k"
for ((i = 1; i <= $THREADS; i++)); do
OPTS="$OPTS -d $MNT/d$i"
done

fs_mark $OPTS

umount $MNT

Before this change:

FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
0 1200000 0 165273.6 5958381
0 2400000 0 190938.3 6284477
0 3600000 0 181429.1 6044059
0 4800000 0 173979.2 6223418
0 6000000 0 139288.0 6384560
0 7200000 0 163000.4 6520083
1 8400000 0 57799.2 5388544
1 9600000 0 66461.6 5552969
2 10800000 0 49593.5 5163675
2 12000000 0 57672.1 4889398

After this change:

FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
0 1200000 0 167987.3 (+1.6%) 6272730
0 2400000 0 198563.9 (+4.0%) 6048847
0 3600000 0 197436.6 (+8.8%) 6163637
0 4800000 0 202880.7 (+16.6%) 6371771
1 6000000 0 167275.9 (+20.1%) 6556733
1 7200000 0 204051.2 (+25.2%) 6817091
1 8400000 0 69622.8 (+20.5%) 5525675
1 9600000 0 69384.5 (+4.4%) 5700723
1 10800000 0 61454.1 (+23.9%) 5363754
3 12000000 0 61908.7 (+7.3%) 5370196

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: allow generic_bin_search() to take low boundary as an argument

Right now generic_bin_search() always uses a low boundary slot of 0, but
in the next patch we'll want to often skip slot 0 when

btrfs: allow generic_bin_search() to take low boundary as an argument

Right now generic_bin_search() always uses a low boundary slot of 0, but
in the next patch we'll want to often skip slot 0 when searching for a
key. So make generic_bin_search() have the low boundary slot specified
as an argument, and move the check for the extent buffer level from
btrfs_bin_search() to generic_bin_search() to avoid adding another
wrapper around generic_bin_search().

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: check the root node for uptodate before returning it

Now that we clear the extent buffer uptodate if we fail to write it out
we need to check to see if our root node is uptodate before we sea

btrfs: check the root node for uptodate before returning it

Now that we clear the extent buffer uptodate if we fail to write it out
we need to check to see if our root node is uptodate before we search
down it. Otherwise we could return stale data (or potentially corrupt
data that was caught by the write verification step) and think that the
path is OK to search down.

CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: make send work with concurrent block group relocation

We don't allow send and balance/relocation to run in parallel in order
to prevent send failing or silently producing some bad stream. Thi

btrfs: make send work with concurrent block group relocation

We don't allow send and balance/relocation to run in parallel in order
to prevent send failing or silently producing some bad stream. This is
because while send is using an extent (specially metadata) or about to
read a metadata extent and expecting it belongs to a specific parent
node, relocation can run, the transaction used for the relocation is
committed and the extent gets reallocated while send is still using the
extent, so it ends up with a different content than expected. This can
result in just failing to read a metadata extent due to failure of the
validation checks (parent transid, level, etc), failure to find a
backreference for a data extent, and other unexpected failures. Besides
reallocation, there's also a similar problem of an extent getting
discarded when it's unpinned after the transaction used for block group
relocation is committed.

The restriction between balance and send was added in commit 9e967495e0e0
("Btrfs: prevent send failures and crashes due to concurrent relocation"),
kernel 5.3, while the more general restriction between send and relocation
was added in commit 1cea5cf0e664 ("btrfs: ensure relocation never runs
while we have send operations running"), kernel 5.14.

Both send and relocation can be very long running operations. Relocation
because it has to do a lot of IO and expensive backreference lookups in
case there are many snapshots, and send due to read IO when operating on
very large trees. This makes it inconvenient for users and tools to deal
with scheduling both operations.

For zoned filesystem we also have automatic block group relocation, so
send can fail with -EAGAIN when users least expect it or send can end up
delaying the block group relocation for too long. In the future we might
also get the automatic block group relocation for non zoned filesystems.

This change makes it possible for send and relocation to run in parallel.
This is achieved the following way:

1) For all tree searches, send acquires a read lock on the commit root
semaphore;

2) After each tree search, and before releasing the commit root semaphore,
the leaf is cloned and placed in the search path (struct btrfs_path);

3) After releasing the commit root semaphore, the changed_cb() callback
is invoked, which operates on the leaf and writes commands to the pipe
(or file in case send/receive is not used with a pipe). It's important
here to not hold a lock on the commit root semaphore, because if we did
we could deadlock when sending and receiving to the same filesystem
using a pipe - the send task blocks on the pipe because it's full, the
receive task, which is the only consumer of the pipe, triggers a
transaction commit when attempting to create a subvolume or reserve
space for a write operation for example, but the transaction commit
blocks trying to write lock the commit root semaphore, resulting in a
deadlock;

4) Before moving to the next key, or advancing to the next change in case
of an incremental send, check if a transaction used for relocation was
committed (or is about to finish its commit). If so, release the search
path(s) and restart the search, to where we were before, so that we
don't operate on stale extent buffers. The search restarts are always
possible because both the send and parent roots are RO, and no one can
add, remove of update keys (change their offset) in RO trees - the
only exception is deduplication, but that is still not allowed to run
in parallel with send;

5) Periodically check if there is contention on the commit root semaphore,
which means there is a transaction commit trying to write lock it, and
release the semaphore and reschedule if there is contention, so as to
avoid causing any significant delays to transaction commits.

This leaves some room for optimizations for send to have less path
releases and re searching the trees when there's relocation running, but
for now it's kept simple as it performs quite well (on very large trees
with resulting send streams in the order of a few hundred gigabytes).

Test case btrfs/187, from fstests, stresses relocation, send and
deduplication attempting to run in parallel, but without verifying if send
succeeds and if it produces correct streams. A new test case will be added
that exercises relocation happening in parallel with send and then checks
that send succeeds and the resulting streams are correct.

A final note is that for now this still leaves the mutual exclusion
between send operations and deduplication on files belonging to a root
used by send operations. A solution for that will be slightly more complex
but it will eventually be built on top of this change.

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: rename btrfs_item_end_nr to btrfs_item_data_end

The name btrfs_item_end_nr() is a bit of a misnomer, as it's actually
the offset of the end of the data the item points to. In fact all of
the

btrfs: rename btrfs_item_end_nr to btrfs_item_data_end

The name btrfs_item_end_nr() is a bit of a misnomer, as it's actually
the offset of the end of the data the item points to. In fact all of
the helpers that we use btrfs_item_end_nr() use data in their name, like
BTRFS_LEAF_DATA_SIZE() and leaf_data(). Rename to btrfs_item_data_end()
to make it clear what this helper is giving us.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: drop the _nr from the item helpers

Now that all call sites are using the slot number to modify item values,
rename the SETGET helpers to raw_item_*(), and then rework the _nr()
helpers to be

btrfs: drop the _nr from the item helpers

Now that all call sites are using the slot number to modify item values,
rename the SETGET helpers to raw_item_*(), and then rework the _nr()
helpers to be the btrfs_item_*() btrfs_set_item_*() helpers, and then
rename all of the callers to the new helpers.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: introduce item_nr token variant helpers

The last remaining place where we have the pattern of

item = btrfs_item_nr(slot)
<do something with the item>

are the token helpers. Handle this b

btrfs: introduce item_nr token variant helpers

The last remaining place where we have the pattern of

item = btrfs_item_nr(slot)
<do something with the item>

are the token helpers. Handle this by introducing token helpers that
will do the btrfs_item_nr() work inside of the helper itself, and then
convert all users of the btrfs_item token helpers to the new _nr()
variants.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: add btrfs_set_item_*_nr() helpers

We have the pattern of

item = btrfs_item_nr(slot);
btrfs_set_item_*(leaf, item);

in a bunch of places in our code. Fix this by adding
btrfs_set_item_*_n

btrfs: add btrfs_set_item_*_nr() helpers

We have the pattern of

item = btrfs_item_nr(slot);
btrfs_set_item_*(leaf, item);

in a bunch of places in our code. Fix this by adding
btrfs_set_item_*_nr() helpers which will do the appropriate work, and
replace those calls with

btrfs_set_item_*_nr(leaf, slot);

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: use btrfs_item_size_nr/btrfs_item_offset_nr everywhere

We have this pattern in a lot of places

item = btrfs_item_nr(slot);
btrfs_item_size(leaf, item);

when we could simply use

btrfs_it

btrfs: use btrfs_item_size_nr/btrfs_item_offset_nr everywhere

We have this pattern in a lot of places

item = btrfs_item_nr(slot);
btrfs_item_size(leaf, item);

when we could simply use

btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot);

Fix all callers of btrfs_item_size() and btrfs_item_offset() to use the
_nr variation of the helpers.

Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: fix invalid delayed ref after subvolume creation failure

When creating a subvolume, at ioctl.c:create_subvol(), if we fail to
insert the new root's root item into the root tree, we are freein

btrfs: fix invalid delayed ref after subvolume creation failure

When creating a subvolume, at ioctl.c:create_subvol(), if we fail to
insert the new root's root item into the root tree, we are freeing the
metadata extent we reserved for the new root to prevent a metadata
extent leak, as we don't abort the transaction at that point (since
there is nothing at that point that is irreversible).

However we allocated the metadata extent for the new root which we are
creating for the new subvolume, so its delayed reference refers to the
ID of this new root. But when we free the metadata extent we pass the
root of the subvolume where the new subvolume is located to
btrfs_free_tree_block() - this is incorrect because this will generate
a delayed reference that refers to the ID of the parent subvolume's root,
and not to ID of the new root.

This results in a failure when running delayed references that leads to
a transaction abort and a trace like the following:

[3868.738042] RIP: 0010:__btrfs_free_extent+0x709/0x950 [btrfs]
[3868.739857] Code: 68 0f 85 e6 fb ff (...)
[3868.742963] RSP: 0018:ffffb0e9045cf910 EFLAGS: 00010246
[3868.743908] RAX: 00000000fffffffe RBX: 00000000fffffffe RCX: 0000000000000002
[3868.745312] RDX: 00000000fffffffe RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: ffff90b0cd793b88
[3868.746643] RBP: 000000000e5d8000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff90b0cd793b88
[3868.747979] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 00014ded97944d68 R12: 0000000000000000
[3868.749373] R13: ffff90b09afe4a28 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff90b0cd793b88
[3868.750725] FS: 00007f281c4a8b80(0000) GS:ffff90b3ada00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[3868.752275] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[3868.753515] CR2: 00007f281c6a5000 CR3: 0000000108a42006 CR4: 0000000000370ee0
[3868.754869] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
[3868.756228] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
[3868.757803] Call Trace:
[3868.758281] <TASK>
[3868.758655] ? btrfs_merge_delayed_refs+0x178/0x1c0 [btrfs]
[3868.759827] __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x2b1/0x1250 [btrfs]
[3868.761047] btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x86/0x210 [btrfs]
[3868.762069] ? lock_acquired+0x19f/0x420
[3868.762829] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x69/0xb20 [btrfs]
[3868.763860] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x40
[3868.764614] ? btrfs_block_rsv_release+0x1c2/0x1e0 [btrfs]
[3868.765870] create_subvol+0x1d8/0x9a0 [btrfs]
[3868.766766] btrfs_mksubvol+0x447/0x4c0 [btrfs]
[3868.767669] ? preempt_count_add+0x49/0xa0
[3868.768444] __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x123/0x190 [btrfs]
[3868.769639] ? _copy_from_user+0x66/0xa0
[3868.770391] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xbb/0x140 [btrfs]
[3868.771495] btrfs_ioctl+0xd1e/0x35c0 [btrfs]
[3868.772364] ? __slab_free+0x10a/0x360
[3868.773198] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x12/0x60
[3868.774121] ? lock_release+0x223/0x4a0
[3868.774863] ? lock_acquired+0x19f/0x420
[3868.775634] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x12/0x60
[3868.776530] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1b/0xe0
[3868.777373] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3e/0x60
[3868.778280] ? kmem_cache_free+0x321/0x3c0
[3868.779011] ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
[3868.779718] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
[3868.780387] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[3868.781059] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[3868.781953] RIP: 0033:0x7f281c59e957
[3868.782585] Code: 3c 1c 48 f7 d8 4c (...)
[3868.785867] RSP: 002b:00007ffe1f83e2b8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
[3868.787198] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f281c59e957
[3868.788450] RDX: 00007ffe1f83e2c0 RSI: 0000000050009418 RDI: 0000000000000003
[3868.789748] RBP: 00007ffe1f83f300 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007ffe1f83fe36
[3868.791214] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000003
[3868.792468] R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 00007ffe1f83e2c0 R15: 00000000000003cc
[3868.793765] </TASK>
[3868.794037] irq event stamp: 0
[3868.794548] hardirqs last enabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
[3868.795670] hardirqs last disabled at (0): [<ffffffff98294214>] copy_process+0x934/0x2040
[3868.797086] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff98294214>] copy_process+0x934/0x2040
[3868.798309] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
[3868.799284] ---[ end trace be24c7002fe27747 ]---
[3868.799928] BTRFS info (device dm-0): leaf 241188864 gen 1268 total ptrs 214 free space 469 owner 2
[3868.801133] BTRFS info (device dm-0): refs 2 lock_owner 225627 current 225627
[3868.802056] item 0 key (237436928 169 0) itemoff 16250 itemsize 33
[3868.802863] extent refs 1 gen 1265 flags 2
[3868.803447] ref#0: tree block backref root 1610
(...)
[3869.064354] item 114 key (241008640 169 0) itemoff 12488 itemsize 33
[3869.065421] extent refs 1 gen 1268 flags 2
[3869.066115] ref#0: tree block backref root 1689
(...)
[3869.403834] BTRFS error (device dm-0): unable to find ref byte nr 241008640 parent 0 root 1622 owner 0 offset 0
[3869.405641] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in __btrfs_free_extent:3076: errno=-2 No such entry
[3869.407138] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in btrfs_run_delayed_refs:2159: errno=-2 No such entry

Fix this by passing the new subvolume's root ID to btrfs_free_tree_block().
This requires changing the root argument of btrfs_free_tree_block() from
struct btrfs_root * to a u64, since at this point during the subvolume
creation we have not yet created the struct btrfs_root for the new
subvolume, and btrfs_free_tree_block() only needs a root ID and nothing
else from a struct btrfs_root.

This was triggered by test case generic/475 from fstests.

Fixes: 67addf29004c5b ("btrfs: fix metadata extent leak after failure to create subvolume")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: unexport setup_items_for_insert()

Since setup_items_for_insert() is not used anymore outside of ctree.c,
make it static and remove its prototype from ctree.h. This also requires
to move the d

btrfs: unexport setup_items_for_insert()

Since setup_items_for_insert() is not used anymore outside of ctree.c,
make it static and remove its prototype from ctree.h. This also requires
to move the definition of setup_item_for_insert() from ctree.h to ctree.c
and move down btrfs_duplicate_item() so that it's defined after
setup_items_for_insert().

Further, since setup_item_for_insert() is used outside ctree.c, rename it
to btrfs_setup_item_for_insert().

This patch is part of a small patchset that is comprised of the following
patches:

btrfs: loop only once over data sizes array when inserting an item batch
btrfs: unexport setup_items_for_insert()
btrfs: use single bulk copy operations when logging directories

This is patch 2/3 and performance results, and the specific tests, are
included in the changelog of patch 3/3.

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: loop only once over data sizes array when inserting an item batch

When inserting a batch of items into a btree, we end up looping over the
data sizes array 3 times:

1) Once in the caller of

btrfs: loop only once over data sizes array when inserting an item batch

When inserting a batch of items into a btree, we end up looping over the
data sizes array 3 times:

1) Once in the caller of btrfs_insert_empty_items(), when it populates the
array with the data sizes for each item;

2) Once at btrfs_insert_empty_items() to sum the elements of the data
sizes array and compute the total data size;

3) And then once again at setup_items_for_insert(), where we do exactly
the same as what we do at btrfs_insert_empty_items(), to compute the
total data size.

That is not bad for small arrays, but when the arrays have hundreds of
elements, the time spent on looping is not negligible. For example when
doing batch inserts of delayed items for dir index items or when logging
a directory, it's common to have 200 to 260 dir index items in a single
batch when using a leaf size of 16K and using file names between 8 and 12
characters. For a 64K leaf size, multiply that by 4. Taking into account
that during directory logging or when flushing delayed dir index items we
can have many of those large batches, the time spent on the looping adds
up quickly.

It's also more important to avoid it at setup_items_for_insert(), since
we are holding a write lock on a leaf and, in some cases, on upper nodes
of the btree, which causes us to block other tasks that want to access
the leaf and nodes for longer than necessary.

So change the code so that setup_items_for_insert() and
btrfs_insert_empty_items() no longer compute the total data size, and
instead rely on the caller to supply it. This makes us loop over the
array only once, where we can both populate the data size array and
compute the total data size, taking advantage of spatial and temporal
locality. To make this more manageable, use a structure to contain
all the relevant details for a batch of items (keys array, data sizes
array, total data size, number of items), and use it as an argument
for btrfs_insert_empty_items() and setup_items_for_insert().

This patch is part of a small patchset that is comprised of the following
patches:

btrfs: loop only once over data sizes array when inserting an item batch
btrfs: unexport setup_items_for_insert()
btrfs: use single bulk copy operations when logging directories

This is patch 1/3 and performance results, and the specific tests, are
included in the changelog of patch 3/3.

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

btrfs: assert that extent buffers are write locked instead of only locked

We currently use lockdep_assert_held() at btrfs_assert_tree_locked(), and
that checks that we hold a lock either in read mod

btrfs: assert that extent buffers are write locked instead of only locked

We currently use lockdep_assert_held() at btrfs_assert_tree_locked(), and
that checks that we hold a lock either in read mode or write mode.

However in all contexts we use btrfs_assert_tree_locked(), we actually
want to check if we are holding a write lock on the extent buffer's rw
semaphore - it would be a bug if in any of those contexts we were holding
a read lock instead.

So change btrfs_assert_tree_locked() to use lockdep_assert_held_write()
instead and, to make it more explicit, rename btrfs_assert_tree_locked()
to btrfs_assert_tree_write_locked(), so that it's clear we want to check
we are holding a write lock.

For now there are no contexts where we want to assert that we must have
a read lock, but in case that is needed in the future, we can add a new
helper function that just calls out lockdep_assert_held_read().

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

show more ...

mm: don't include <linux/blk-cgroup.h> in <linux/backing-dev.h>

There is no need to pull blk-cgroup.h and thus blkdev.h in here, so
break the include chain.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@ls

mm: don't include <linux/blk-cgroup.h> in <linux/backing-dev.h>

There is no need to pull blk-cgroup.h and thus blkdev.h in here, so
break the include chain.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210920123328.1399408-3-hch@lst.de
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARN

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

[ Upstream commit b40130b23ca4a08c5785d5a3559805916bddba3c ]

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);

*** DEADLOCK ***

7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:

dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of

reloc tree -> normal tree

for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.

However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of

normal tree -> reloc tree

which is why lockdep complains.

Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.

Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.

This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of

normal tree -> reloc tree

We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.

With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...