[PATCH 0/2] A couple of lockdep fixes

[PATCH 0/2] A couple of lockdep fixes

[Josef Bacik]

Hello,

These are the last two lockdep splats I'm able to see in my testing.  We have
like 4 variations of the same lockdep splat that's addressed by 

btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under chunk_mutex

Basically this particular dependency pulls in the kernfs_mutex under the
chunk_mutex, and so we have like 4 issues in github with slightly different
splats, but are all fixed by that fix.  With these two patches (and the one I
sent the other day for add_missing_dev) I haven't hit any lockdep splats in 6
runs of xfstests on 3 different VMs in the last 12 hours.  That means it should
take Dave at least 2 runs before he hits a new one.  Thanks,

Josef Bacik (2):
  btrfs: init sysfs for devices outside of the chunk_mutex
  btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under chunk_mutex

 fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
 fs/btrfs/sysfs.c       | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
 fs/btrfs/volumes.c     |  7 ++++---
 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: init sysfs for devices outside of the chunk_mutex

[Josef Bacik]

While running btrfs/187 I hit the following lockdep splat

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.9.0-rc3+ #4 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/100 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff96ecc22ef4a0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330

but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff8dd74700 (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_link+0x63/0xa0
       sysfs_do_create_link_sd+0x5e/0xd0
       btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir+0x81/0x130
       btrfs_init_new_device+0x67f/0x1250
       btrfs_ioctl+0x1ef/0x2e20
       __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
       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_insert_empty_items+0x64/0xb0
       btrfs_insert_delayed_items+0x90/0x4f0
       btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_items+0x93/0x140
       btrfs_log_inode+0x5de/0x2020
       btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x429/0xc90
       btrfs_log_new_name+0x95/0x9b
       btrfs_rename2+0xbb9/0x1800
       vfs_rename+0x64f/0x9f0
       do_renameat2+0x320/0x4e0
       __x64_sys_rename+0x1f/0x30
       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: ffffffff8dd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
 #1: ffffffff8dd65c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x115/0x290
 #2: ffff96ed2ade30e0 (&type->s_umount_key#36){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1e0

stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 100 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc3+ #4
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 we are holding the chunk_mutex at the time of
adding in a new device.  However we only need to hold the
device_list_mutex, as we're going to iterate over the fs_devices
devices.  Move the sysfs init stuff outside of the chunk_mutex to get
rid of this lockdep splat.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index d6bbbe1986bb..77b7da42c651 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -2599,9 +2599,6 @@ int btrfs_init_new_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path
 	btrfs_set_super_num_devices(fs_info->super_copy,
 				    orig_super_num_devices + 1);
 
-	/* add sysfs device entry */
-	btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir(fs_devices, device);
-
 	/*
 	 * we've got more storage, clear any full flags on the space
 	 * infos
@@ -2609,6 +2606,10 @@ int btrfs_init_new_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path
 	btrfs_clear_space_info_full(fs_info);
 
 	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
+
+	/* add sysfs device entry */
+	btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir(fs_devices, device);
+
 	mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
 
 	if (seeding_dev) {
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH 2/2] btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under chunk_mutex

[Josef Bacik]

While running xfstests 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 fine
on mount, where we aren't holding any locks.  But during restriping we
do this under the chunk_mutex, which is deadlock prone.

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
syfsdir.  Fix this by wrapping the creation in space_info->lock, so we
only get one person calling kobject_add() for the new directory.  We
don't worry about the lock on cleanup as it only gets deleted on
unmount.

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
 fs/btrfs/sysfs.c       | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
index 01e8ba1da1d3..d0c1ebd385e3 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
@@ -1762,7 +1762,8 @@ static int exclude_super_stripes(struct btrfs_block_group *cache)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void link_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache)
+static void link_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache,
+			     bool update_sysfs)
 {
 	struct btrfs_space_info *space_info = cache->space_info;
 	int index = btrfs_bg_flags_to_raid_index(cache->flags);
@@ -1774,7 +1775,7 @@ static void link_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache)
 	list_add_tail(&cache->list, &space_info->block_groups[index]);
 	up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
 
-	if (first)
+	if (first && update_sysfs)
 		btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type(cache);
 }
 
@@ -1973,7 +1974,7 @@ static int read_one_block_group(struct btrfs_fs_info *info,
 
 	cache->space_info = space_info;
 
-	link_block_group(cache);
+	link_block_group(cache, true);
 
 	set_avail_alloc_bits(info, cache->flags);
 	if (btrfs_chunk_readonly(info, cache->start)) {
@@ -2093,12 +2094,16 @@ void btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
 		return;
 
 	while (!list_empty(&trans->new_bgs)) {
+		int index;
+
 		block_group = list_first_entry(&trans->new_bgs,
 					       struct btrfs_block_group,
 					       bg_list);
 		if (ret)
 			goto next;
 
+		index = btrfs_bg_flags_to_raid_index(block_group->flags);
+
 		ret = insert_block_group_item(trans, block_group);
 		if (ret)
 			btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
@@ -2107,6 +2112,16 @@ void btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
 		if (ret)
 			btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
 		add_block_group_free_space(trans, block_group);
+
+		/*
+		 * If we restriped we may have added a new raid type, so now add
+		 * the sysfs entries when it is safe to do so.  We don't have to
+		 * worry about locking here as it's handled in
+		 * btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type.
+		 */
+		if (block_group->space_info->block_group_kobjs[index] == NULL)
+			btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type(block_group);
+
 		/* Already aborted the transaction if it failed. */
 next:
 		btrfs_delayed_refs_rsv_release(fs_info, 1);
@@ -2179,7 +2194,7 @@ int btrfs_make_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 bytes_used,
 				cache->bytes_super, &cache->space_info);
 	btrfs_update_global_block_rsv(fs_info);
 
-	link_block_group(cache);
+	link_block_group(cache, false);
 
 	list_add_tail(&cache->bg_list, &trans->new_bgs);
 	trans->delayed_ref_updates++;
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c
index 190e59152be5..89005f51bab8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c
@@ -1077,17 +1077,38 @@ void btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type(struct btrfs_block_group *cache)
 
 	rkobj->flags = cache->flags;
 	kobject_init(&rkobj->kobj, &btrfs_raid_ktype);
+
+	/*
+	 * We call this either on mount, or if we've created a block group for a
+	 * new index type while running (i.e. when restriping).  The running
+	 * case is tricky because we could race with other threads, so we need
+	 * to have this check to make sure we didn't already init the kobject.
+	 *
+	 * We don't have to protect on the free side because it only happens on
+	 * unmount.
+	 */
+	spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
+	if (space_info->block_group_kobjs[index]) {
+		spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
+		kobject_put(&rkobj->kobj);
+		return;
+	} else {
+		space_info->block_group_kobjs[index] = &rkobj->kobj;
+	}
+	spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
+
 	ret = kobject_add(&rkobj->kobj, &space_info->kobj, "%s",
 			  btrfs_bg_type_to_raid_name(rkobj->flags));
 	memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag);
 	if (ret) {
+		spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
+		space_info->block_group_kobjs[index] = NULL;
+		spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 		kobject_put(&rkobj->kobj);
 		btrfs_warn(fs_info,
 			"failed to add kobject for block cache, ignoring");
 		return;
 	}
-
-	space_info->block_group_kobjs[index] = &rkobj->kobj;
 }
 
 /*
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: init sysfs for devices outside of the chunk_mutex

[David Sterba]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 08:09:01AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> While running btrfs/187 I hit the following lockdep splat

So this also fixes btrfs/061, /073 and /078.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under chunk_mutex

[David Sterba]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 08:09:02AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> While running xfstests I got the following lockdep splat

Do you know which test was that? The stacktraces don't match any of the
currently open issues.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under chunk_mutex

[Josef Bacik]

On 9/1/20 11:35 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 08:09:02AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> While running xfstests I got the following lockdep splat
> 
> Do you know which test was that? The stacktraces don't match any of the
> currently open issues.
> 

Oops sorry, I hit it with btrfs/177.  Thanks,

Josef