The current implementation of the reclaim lockup detection can lead to
false positives and those even happen and usually lead to tweak the code
to silence the lockdep by using GFP_NOFS even though the context can use
__GFP_FS just fine.

See

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160512080321.GA18496@dastard

as an example.

  =================================
  [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
  4.5.0-rc2+ #4 Tainted: G           O
  ---------------------------------
  inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-R} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
  kswapd0/543 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:

  (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++-+}, at: xfs_ilock+0x177/0x200 [xfs]

  {RECLAIM_FS-ON-R} state was registered at:
    mark_held_locks+0x79/0xa0
    lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb3/0x100
    kmem_cache_alloc+0x33/0x230
    kmem_zone_alloc+0x81/0x120 [xfs]
    xfs_refcountbt_init_cursor+0x3e/0xa0 [xfs]
    __xfs_refcount_find_shared+0x75/0x580 [xfs]
    xfs_refcount_find_shared+0x84/0xb0 [xfs]
    xfs_getbmap+0x608/0x8c0 [xfs]
    xfs_vn_fiemap+0xab/0xc0 [xfs]
    do_vfs_ioctl+0x498/0x670
    SyS_ioctl+0x79/0x90
    entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x6f

         CPU0
         ----
    lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
    <Interrupt>
      lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);

   *** DEADLOCK ***

  3 locks held by kswapd0/543:

  stack backtrace:
  CPU: 0 PID: 543 Comm: kswapd0 Tainted: G           O    4.5.0-rc2+ #4
  Call Trace:
   lock_acquire+0xd8/0x1e0
   down_write_nested+0x5e/0xc0
   xfs_ilock+0x177/0x200 [xfs]
   xfs_reflink_cancel_cow_range+0x150/0x300 [xfs]
   xfs_fs_evict_inode+0xdc/0x1e0 [xfs]
   evict+0xc5/0x190
   dispose_list+0x39/0x60
   prune_icache_sb+0x4b/0x60
   super_cache_scan+0x14f/0x1a0
   shrink_slab.part.63.constprop.79+0x1e9/0x4e0
   shrink_zone+0x15e/0x170
   kswapd+0x4f1/0xa80
   kthread+0xf2/0x110
   ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70

To quote Dave:
 "Ignoring whether reflink should be doing anything or not, that's a
  "xfs_refcountbt_init_cursor() gets called both outside and inside
  transactions" lockdep false positive case. The problem here is lockdep
  has seen this allocation from within a transaction, hence a GFP_NOFS
  allocation, and now it's seeing it in a GFP_KERNEL context. Also note
  that we have an active reference to this inode.

  So, because the reclaim annotations overload the interrupt level
  detections and it's seen the inode ilock been taken in reclaim
  ("interrupt") context, this triggers a reclaim context warning where
  it thinks it is unsafe to do this allocation in GFP_KERNEL context
  holding the inode ilock..."

This sounds like a fundamental problem of the reclaim lock detection.
It is really impossible to annotate such a special usecase IMHO unless
the reclaim lockup detection is reworked completely.  Until then it is
much better to provide a way to add "I know what I am doing flag" and
mark problematic places.  This would prevent from abusing GFP_NOFS flag
which has a runtime effect even on configurations which have lockdep
disabled.

Introduce __GFP_NOLOCKDEP flag which tells the lockdep gfp tracking to
skip the current allocation request.

While we are at it also make sure that the radix tree doesn't
accidentaly override tags stored in the upper part of the gfp_mask.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170306131408.9828-3-mhocko@kernel.orgSigned-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>