Skip to content

L
linux
Commit bbb86a37 authored by Josef Bacik's avatar Josef Bacik Committed by David Sterba
Browse files
Options

btrfs: protect fs_info->caching_block_groups by block_group_cache_lock 

I got the following lockdep splat

  ======================================================
  WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
  5.9.0+ #101 Not tainted
  ------------------------------------------------------
  btrfs-cleaner/3445 is trying to acquire lock:
  ffff89dbec39ab48 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170

  but task is already holding lock:
  ffff89dbeaf28a88 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_find_all_roots+0x41/0x80

  which lock already depends on the new lock.

  the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

  -> #2 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}:
	 down_write+0x3d/0x70
	 btrfs_cache_block_group+0x2d5/0x510
	 find_free_extent+0xb6e/0x12f0
	 btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
	 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb1/0x330
	 alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4f/0x60
	 __btrfs_cow_block+0x11d/0x580
	 btrfs_cow_block+0x10c/0x220
	 commit_cowonly_roots+0x47/0x2e0
	 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x595/0xbd0
	 sync_filesystem+0x74/0x90
	 generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100
	 kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30
	 btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20
	 deactivate_locked_super+0x36/0xa0
	 cleanup_mnt+0x12d/0x190
	 task_work_run+0x5c/0xa0
	 exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1df/0x200
	 syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x54/0x280
	 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9

  -> #1 (&space_info->groups_sem){++++}-{3:3}:
	 down_read+0x40/0x130
	 find_free_extent+0x2ed/0x12f0
	 btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
	 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb1/0x330
	 alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4f/0x60
	 __btrfs_cow_block+0x11d/0x580
	 btrfs_cow_block+0x10c/0x220
	 commit_cowonly_roots+0x47/0x2e0
	 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x595/0xbd0
	 sync_filesystem+0x74/0x90
	 generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100
	 kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30
	 btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20
	 deactivate_locked_super+0x36/0xa0
	 cleanup_mnt+0x12d/0x190
	 task_work_run+0x5c/0xa0
	 exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1df/0x200
	 syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x54/0x280
	 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9

  -> #0 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}:
	 __lock_acquire+0x1167/0x2150
	 lock_acquire+0xb9/0x3d0
	 down_read_nested+0x43/0x130
	 __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
	 __btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50
	 btrfs_search_slot+0x614/0x9d0
	 btrfs_find_root+0x35/0x1b0
	 btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x120
	 btrfs_get_root_ref+0x14b/0x600
	 find_parent_nodes+0x3e6/0x1b30
	 btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0xb4/0x130
	 btrfs_find_all_roots+0x60/0x80
	 btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post+0x27/0x40
	 btrfs_add_delayed_data_ref+0x3fd/0x460
	 btrfs_free_extent+0x42/0x100
	 __btrfs_mod_ref+0x1d7/0x2f0
	 walk_up_proc+0x11c/0x400
	 walk_up_tree+0xf0/0x180
	 btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x1c7/0x780
	 btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0xfb/0x110
	 cleaner_kthread+0xd4/0x140
	 kthread+0x13a/0x150
	 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

  other info that might help us debug this:

  Chain exists of:
    btrfs-root-00 --> &space_info->groups_sem --> &fs_info->commit_root_sem

   Possible unsafe locking scenario:

	 CPU0                    CPU1
	 ----                    ----
    lock(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
				 lock(&space_info->groups_sem);
				 lock(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
    lock(btrfs-root-00);

   *** DEADLOCK ***

  3 locks held by btrfs-cleaner/3445:
   #0: ffff89dbeaf28838 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cleaner_kthread+0x6e/0x140
   #1: ffff89dbeb6c7640 (sb_internal){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: start_transaction+0x40b/0x5c0
   #2: ffff89dbeaf28a88 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_find_all_roots+0x41/0x80

  stack backtrace:
  CPU: 0 PID: 3445 Comm: btrfs-cleaner Not tainted 5.9.0+ #101
  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
  Call Trace:
   dump_stack+0x8b/0xb0
   check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0
   __lock_acquire+0x1167/0x2150
   ? __bfs+0x42/0x210
   lock_acquire+0xb9/0x3d0
   ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
   down_read_nested+0x43/0x130
   ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
   __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
   __btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50
   btrfs_search_slot+0x614/0x9d0
   ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
   btrfs_find_root+0x35/0x1b0
   ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4b/0xa0
   btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x120
   btrfs_get_root_ref+0x14b/0x600
   find_parent_nodes+0x3e6/0x1b30
   btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0xb4/0x130
   btrfs_find_all_roots+0x60/0x80
   btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post+0x27/0x40
   btrfs_add_delayed_data_ref+0x3fd/0x460
   btrfs_free_extent+0x42/0x100
   __btrfs_mod_ref+0x1d7/0x2f0
   walk_up_proc+0x11c/0x400
   walk_up_tree+0xf0/0x180
   btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x1c7/0x780
   ? btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0x73/0x110
   btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0xfb/0x110
   cleaner_kthread+0xd4/0x140
   ? btrfs_alloc_root+0x50/0x50
   kthread+0x13a/0x150
   ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x40/0x40
   ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

while testing another lockdep fix.  This happens because we're using the
commit_root_sem to protect fs_info->caching_block_groups, which creates
a dependency on the groups_sem -> commit_root_sem, which is problematic
because we will allocate blocks while holding tree roots.  Fix this by
making the list itself protected by the fs_info->block_group_cache_lock.
Reviewed-by: default avatarFilipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJosef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
parent e747853c
Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
Showing with 8 additions and 6 deletions
fs/btrfs/block-group.c
View file @ bbb86a37
......@@ -747,10 +747,10 @@ int btrfs_cache_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache, int load_cache_only
cache->has_caching_ctl = 1;
spin_unlock(&cache->lock);
down_write(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
spin_lock(&fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
refcount_inc(&caching_ctl->count);
list_add_tail(&caching_ctl->list, &fs_info->caching_block_groups);
up_write(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
spin_unlock(&fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
btrfs_get_block_group(cache);
......@@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
if (block_group->cached == BTRFS_CACHE_STARTED)
btrfs_wait_block_group_cache_done(block_group);
if (block_group->has_caching_ctl) {
down_write(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
spin_lock(&fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
if (!caching_ctl) {
struct btrfs_caching_control *ctl;
......@@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
}
if (caching_ctl)
list_del_init(&caching_ctl->list);
up_write(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
spin_unlock(&fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
if (caching_ctl) {
/* Once for the caching bgs list and once for us. */
btrfs_put_caching_control(caching_ctl);
......@@ -3311,14 +3311,14 @@ int btrfs_free_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
struct btrfs_caching_control *caching_ctl;
struct rb_node *n;
down_write(&info->commit_root_sem);
spin_lock(&info->block_group_cache_lock);
while (!list_empty(&info->caching_block_groups)) {
caching_ctl = list_entry(info->caching_block_groups.next,
struct btrfs_caching_control, list);
list_del(&caching_ctl->list);
btrfs_put_caching_control(caching_ctl);
}
up_write(&info->commit_root_sem);
spin_unlock(&info->block_group_cache_lock);
spin_lock(&info->unused_bgs_lock);
while (!list_empty(&info->unused_bgs)) {
......
fs/btrfs/transaction.c
View file @ bbb86a37
......@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ static noinline void switch_commit_roots(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
* the caching thread will re-start it's search from 3, and thus find
* the hole from [4,6) to add to the free space cache.
*/
spin_lock(&fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(caching_ctl, next,
&fs_info->caching_block_groups, list) {
struct btrfs_block_group *cache = caching_ctl->block_group;
......@@ -220,6 +221,7 @@ static noinline void switch_commit_roots(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
cache->last_byte_to_unpin = caching_ctl->progress;
}
}
spin_unlock(&fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
up_write(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
}
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7