| H A D | sysfs.c | 49ea112d Tue Sep 01 16:40:38 CDT 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under any locks
While running xfstests btrfs/177 I got the following lockdep splat
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.9.0-rc3+ #5 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/100 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97066aa56760 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff9fd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire+0x65/0x80
slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x20/0x200
kmem_cache_alloc+0x37/0x270
alloc_inode+0x82/0xb0
iget_locked+0x10d/0x2c0
kernfs_get_inode+0x1b/0x130
kernfs_get_tree+0x136/0x240
sysfs_get_tree+0x16/0x40
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
path_mount+0x434/0xc00
__x64_sys_mount+0xe3/0x120
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #2 (kernfs_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
kernfs_add_one+0x23/0x150
kernfs_create_dir_ns+0x7a/0xb0
sysfs_create_dir_ns+0x60/0xb0
kobject_add_internal+0xc0/0x2c0
kobject_add+0x6e/0x90
btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type+0x102/0x160
btrfs_make_block_group+0x167/0x230
btrfs_alloc_chunk+0x54f/0xb80
btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x18e/0x3a0
find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530
btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220
btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0
btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x64/0xb0
btrfs_new_inode+0x225/0x730
btrfs_create+0xab/0x1f0
lookup_open.isra.0+0x52d/0x690
path_openat+0x2a7/0x9e0
do_filp_open+0x75/0x100
do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
__x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x125/0x3a0
find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530
btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220
btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0x8f
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x80/0x240
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x119/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x357/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
do_unlinkat+0x1a9/0x2b0
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0
lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
kthread+0x138/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> kernfs_mutex --> fs_reclaim
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(kernfs_mutex);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kswapd0/100:
#0: ffffffff9fd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
#1: ffffffff9fd65c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x115/0x290
#2: ffff9706629780e0 (&type->s_umount_key#36){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1e0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 100 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc3+ #5
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x8b/0xb8
check_noncircular+0x12d/0x150
__lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0
lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x50
? add_wait_queue_exclusive+0x70/0x70
? balance_pgdat+0x670/0x670
kthread+0x138/0x160
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x40/0x40
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
This happens because when we link in a block group with a new raid index
type we'll create the corresponding sysfs entries for it. This is
problematic because while restriping we're holding the chunk_mutex, and
while mounting we're holding the tree locks.
Fixing this isn't pretty, we move the call to the sysfs stuff into the
btrfs_create_pending_block_groups() work, where we're not holding any
locks. This creates a slight race where other threads could see that
there's no sysfs kobj for that raid type, and race to create the
sysfs dir. Fix this by wrapping the creation in space_info->lock, so we
only get one thread calling kobject_add() for the new directory. We
don't worry about the lock on cleanup as it only gets deleted on
unmount.
On mount it's more straightforward, we loop through the space_infos
already, just check every raid index in each space_info and added the
sysfs entries for the corresponding block groups.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
49ea112d Tue Sep 01 16:40:38 CDT 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under any locks
While running xfstests btrfs/177 I got the following lockdep splat
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.9.0-rc3+ #5 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/100 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97066aa56760 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff9fd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire+0x65/0x80
slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x20/0x200
kmem_cache_alloc+0x37/0x270
alloc_inode+0x82/0xb0
iget_locked+0x10d/0x2c0
kernfs_get_inode+0x1b/0x130
kernfs_get_tree+0x136/0x240
sysfs_get_tree+0x16/0x40
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
path_mount+0x434/0xc00
__x64_sys_mount+0xe3/0x120
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #2 (kernfs_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
kernfs_add_one+0x23/0x150
kernfs_create_dir_ns+0x7a/0xb0
sysfs_create_dir_ns+0x60/0xb0
kobject_add_internal+0xc0/0x2c0
kobject_add+0x6e/0x90
btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type+0x102/0x160
btrfs_make_block_group+0x167/0x230
btrfs_alloc_chunk+0x54f/0xb80
btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x18e/0x3a0
find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530
btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220
btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0
btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x64/0xb0
btrfs_new_inode+0x225/0x730
btrfs_create+0xab/0x1f0
lookup_open.isra.0+0x52d/0x690
path_openat+0x2a7/0x9e0
do_filp_open+0x75/0x100
do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
__x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x125/0x3a0
find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530
btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220
btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0x8f
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x80/0x240
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x119/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x357/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
do_unlinkat+0x1a9/0x2b0
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0
lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
kthread+0x138/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> kernfs_mutex --> fs_reclaim
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(kernfs_mutex);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kswapd0/100:
#0: ffffffff9fd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
#1: ffffffff9fd65c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x115/0x290
#2: ffff9706629780e0 (&type->s_umount_key#36){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1e0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 100 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc3+ #5
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x8b/0xb8
check_noncircular+0x12d/0x150
__lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0
lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x50
? add_wait_queue_exclusive+0x70/0x70
? balance_pgdat+0x670/0x670
kthread+0x138/0x160
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x40/0x40
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
This happens because when we link in a block group with a new raid index
type we'll create the corresponding sysfs entries for it. This is
problematic because while restriping we're holding the chunk_mutex, and
while mounting we're holding the tree locks.
Fixing this isn't pretty, we move the call to the sysfs stuff into the
btrfs_create_pending_block_groups() work, where we're not holding any
locks. This creates a slight race where other threads could see that
there's no sysfs kobj for that raid type, and race to create the
sysfs dir. Fix this by wrapping the creation in space_info->lock, so we
only get one thread calling kobject_add() for the new directory. We
don't worry about the lock on cleanup as it only gets deleted on
unmount.
On mount it's more straightforward, we loop through the space_infos
already, just check every raid index in each space_info and added the
sysfs entries for the corresponding block groups.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | block-group.c | 49ea112d Tue Sep 01 16:40:38 CDT 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under any locks
While running xfstests btrfs/177 I got the following lockdep splat
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.9.0-rc3+ #5 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/100 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97066aa56760 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff9fd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire+0x65/0x80
slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x20/0x200
kmem_cache_alloc+0x37/0x270
alloc_inode+0x82/0xb0
iget_locked+0x10d/0x2c0
kernfs_get_inode+0x1b/0x130
kernfs_get_tree+0x136/0x240
sysfs_get_tree+0x16/0x40
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
path_mount+0x434/0xc00
__x64_sys_mount+0xe3/0x120
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #2 (kernfs_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
kernfs_add_one+0x23/0x150
kernfs_create_dir_ns+0x7a/0xb0
sysfs_create_dir_ns+0x60/0xb0
kobject_add_internal+0xc0/0x2c0
kobject_add+0x6e/0x90
btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type+0x102/0x160
btrfs_make_block_group+0x167/0x230
btrfs_alloc_chunk+0x54f/0xb80
btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x18e/0x3a0
find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530
btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220
btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0
btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x64/0xb0
btrfs_new_inode+0x225/0x730
btrfs_create+0xab/0x1f0
lookup_open.isra.0+0x52d/0x690
path_openat+0x2a7/0x9e0
do_filp_open+0x75/0x100
do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
__x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x125/0x3a0
find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530
btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220
btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0x8f
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x80/0x240
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x119/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x357/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
do_unlinkat+0x1a9/0x2b0
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0
lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
kthread+0x138/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> kernfs_mutex --> fs_reclaim
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(kernfs_mutex);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kswapd0/100:
#0: ffffffff9fd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
#1: ffffffff9fd65c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x115/0x290
#2: ffff9706629780e0 (&type->s_umount_key#36){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1e0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 100 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc3+ #5
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x8b/0xb8
check_noncircular+0x12d/0x150
__lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0
lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0
? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x50
? add_wait_queue_exclusive+0x70/0x70
? balance_pgdat+0x670/0x670
kthread+0x138/0x160
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x40/0x40
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
This happens because when we link in a block group with a new raid index
type we'll create the corresponding sysfs entries for it. This is
problematic because while restriping we're holding the chunk_mutex, and
while mounting we're holding the tree locks.
Fixing this isn't pretty, we move the call to the sysfs stuff into the
btrfs_create_pending_block_groups() work, where we're not holding any
locks. This creates a slight race where other threads could see that
there's no sysfs kobj for that raid type, and race to create the
sysfs dir. Fix this by wrapping the creation in space_info->lock, so we
only get one thread calling kobject_add() for the new directory. We
don't worry about the lock on cleanup as it only gets deleted on
unmount.
On mount it's more straightforward, we loop through the space_infos
already, just check every raid index in each space_info and added the
sysfs entries for the corresponding block groups.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|