-
Josef Bacik authored
With the conversion of the tree locks to rwsem I got the following lockdep splat: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.8.0-rc7-00167-g0d7ba0c5b375-dirty #925 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs-uuid/7955 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88bfbafec0f8 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 but task is already holding lock: ffff88bfbafef2a8 (btrfs-uuid-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (btrfs-uuid-00){++++}-{3:3}: down_read_nested+0x3e/0x140 __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 __btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x4bd/0x990 btrfs_uuid_tree_add+0x89/0x2d0 btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread+0x330/0x390 kthread+0x133/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #0 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360 down_read_nested+0x3e/0x140 __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 __btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x4bd/0x990 btrfs_find_root+0x45/0x1b0 btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x100 btrfs_get_root_ref.part.50+0x143/0x630 btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate+0x207/0x314 btrfs_uuid_rescan_kthread+0x12/0x50 kthread+0x133/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-uuid-00); lock(btrfs-root-00); lock(btrfs-uuid-00); lock(btrfs-root-00); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by btrfs-uuid/7955: #0: ffff88bfbafef2a8 (btrfs-uuid-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 stack backtrace: CPU: 73 PID: 7955 Comm: btrfs-uuid Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.8.0-rc7-00167-g0d7ba0c5b375-dirty #925 Hardware name: Quanta Tioga Pass Single Side 01-0030993006/Tioga Pass Single Side, BIOS F08_3A18 12/20/2018 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x78/0xa0 check_noncircular+0x165/0x180 __lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360 ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 ? btrfs_root_node+0x1c/0x1d0 down_read_nested+0x3e/0x140 ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180 __btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x4bd/0x990 btrfs_find_root+0x45/0x1b0 btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x100 btrfs_get_root_ref.part.50+0x143/0x630 btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate+0x207/0x314 ? btree_readpage+0x20/0x20 btrfs_uuid_rescan_kthread+0x12/0x50 kthread+0x133/0x150 ? kthread_create_on_node+0x60/0x60 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 This problem exists because we have two different rescan threads, btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread which creates the uuid tree, and btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate that goes through and updates or deletes any out of date roots. The problem is they both do things in different order. btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread() reads the tree_root, and then inserts entries into the uuid_root. btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate() scans the uuid_root, but then does a btrfs_get_fs_root() which can read from the tree_root. It's actually easy enough to not be holding the path in btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread() when we add a uuid entry, as we already drop it further down and re-start the search when we loop. So simply move the path release before we add our entry to the uuid tree. This also fixes a problem where we're holding a path open after we do btrfs_end_transaction(), which has it's own problems. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+ Reviewed-by:
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@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>
9771a5cf