All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] btrfs: do not take the uuid_mutex in btrfs_rm_device
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:17:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL3q7H7Ohy+vHmVu2s4nJa9Kj4U4aRgUZ2U7kSxOGC0kqJdYjw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL3q7H6KdA+ay4y=wTMjXBiXNPw8n0rhyfKS7WNqh3uOm2XuZw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:59 PM Filipe Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote:
> >
> > We got the following lockdep splat while running xfstests (specifically
> > btrfs/003 and btrfs/020 in a row) with the new rc.  This was uncovered
> > by 87579e9b7d8d ("loop: use worker per cgroup instead of kworker") which
> > converted loop to using workqueues, which comes with lockdep
> > annotations that don't exist with kworkers.  The lockdep splat is as
> > follows
> >
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 5.14.0-rc2-custom+ #34 Not tainted
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > losetup/156417 is trying to acquire lock:
> > ffff9c7645b02d38 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x84/0x600
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > ffff9c7647395468 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x650 [loop]
> >
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >
> > -> #5 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> >        __mutex_lock+0xba/0x7c0
> >        lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
> >        blkdev_get_whole+0x28/0xf0
> >        blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0
> >        blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
> >        do_dentry_open+0x163/0x3a0
> >        path_openat+0x74d/0xa40
> >        do_filp_open+0x9c/0x140
> >        do_sys_openat2+0xb1/0x170
> >        __x64_sys_openat+0x54/0x90
> >        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> >        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >
> > -> #4 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> >        __mutex_lock+0xba/0x7c0
> >        blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0xd1/0x3c0
> >        blkdev_get_by_path+0xc0/0xd0
> >        btrfs_scan_one_device+0x52/0x1f0 [btrfs]
> >        btrfs_control_ioctl+0xac/0x170 [btrfs]
> >        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
> >        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> >        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >
> > -> #3 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> >        __mutex_lock+0xba/0x7c0
> >        btrfs_rm_device+0x48/0x6a0 [btrfs]
> >        btrfs_ioctl+0x2d1c/0x3110 [btrfs]
> >        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
> >        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> >        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >
> > -> #2 (sb_writers#11){.+.+}-{0:0}:
> >        lo_write_bvec+0x112/0x290 [loop]
> >        loop_process_work+0x25f/0xcb0 [loop]
> >        process_one_work+0x28f/0x5d0
> >        worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
> >        kthread+0x140/0x170
> >        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> >
> > -> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> >        process_one_work+0x266/0x5d0
> >        worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
> >        kthread+0x140/0x170
> >        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> >
> > -> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> >        __lock_acquire+0x1130/0x1dc0
> >        lock_acquire+0xf5/0x320
> >        flush_workqueue+0xae/0x600
> >        drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
> >        destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
> >        __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x650 [loop]
> >        lo_ioctl+0x29d/0x780 [loop]
> >        block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
> >        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
> >        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> >        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > Chain exists of:
> >   (wq_completion)loop0 --> &disk->open_mutex --> &lo->lo_mutex
> >  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >        CPU0                    CPU1
> >        ----                    ----
> >   lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
> >                                lock(&disk->open_mutex);
> >                                lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
> >   lock((wq_completion)loop0);
> >
> >  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > 1 lock held by losetup/156417:
> >  #0: ffff9c7647395468 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x650 [loop]
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > CPU: 8 PID: 156417 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2-custom+ #34
> > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
> > Call Trace:
> >  dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
> >  check_noncircular+0x10a/0x120
> >  __lock_acquire+0x1130/0x1dc0
> >  lock_acquire+0xf5/0x320
> >  ? flush_workqueue+0x84/0x600
> >  flush_workqueue+0xae/0x600
> >  ? flush_workqueue+0x84/0x600
> >  drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
> >  destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
> >  __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x650 [loop]
> >  lo_ioctl+0x29d/0x780 [loop]
> >  ? __lock_acquire+0x3a0/0x1dc0
> >  ? update_dl_rq_load_avg+0x152/0x360
> >  ? lock_is_held_type+0xa5/0x120
> >  ? find_held_lock.constprop.0+0x2b/0x80
> >  block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
> >  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
> >  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> >  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > RIP: 0033:0x7f645884de6b
> >
> > Usually the uuid_mutex exists to protect the fs_devices that map
> > together all of the devices that match a specific uuid.  In rm_device
> > we're messing with the uuid of a device, so it makes sense to protect
> > that here.
> >
> > However in doing that it pulls in a whole host of lockdep dependencies,
> > as we call mnt_may_write() on the sb before we grab the uuid_mutex, thus
> > we end up with the dependency chain under the uuid_mutex being added
> > under the normal sb write dependency chain, which causes problems with
> > loop devices.
> >
> > We don't need the uuid mutex here however.  If we call
> > btrfs_scan_one_device() before we scratch the super block we will find
> > the fs_devices and not find the device itself and return EBUSY because
> > the fs_devices is open.  If we call it after the scratch happens it will
> > not appear to be a valid btrfs file system.
> >
> > We do not need to worry about other fs_devices modifying operations here
> > because we're protected by the exclusive operations locking.
> >
> > So drop the uuid_mutex here in order to fix the lockdep splat.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 5 -----
> >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > index 5217b93172b4..0e7372f637eb 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > @@ -2082,8 +2082,6 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path,
> >         u64 num_devices;
> >         int ret = 0;
> >
> > -       mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex);
> > -
> >         num_devices = btrfs_num_devices(fs_info);
> >
> >         ret = btrfs_check_raid_min_devices(fs_info, num_devices - 1);
> > @@ -2127,11 +2125,9 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path,
> >                 mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> >         }
> >
> > -       mutex_unlock(&uuid_mutex);
> >         ret = btrfs_shrink_device(device, 0);
> >         if (!ret)
> >                 btrfs_reada_remove_dev(device);
> > -       mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex);
>
> On misc-next, this is now triggering a warning due to a lockdep
> assertion failure:
>
> [ 5343.002752] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 5343.002756] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 797246 at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:1165
> close_fs_devices+0x200/0x220 [btrfs]
> [ 5343.002813] Modules linked in: dm_dust btrfs dm_flakey dm_mod
> blake2b_generic xor raid6_pq libcrc32c bochs drm_vram_helper
> intel_rapl_msr intel_rapl_common drm_ttm_helper crct10dif_pclmul ttm
> ghash_clmulni_intel aesni_intel drm_kms_helper crypto_simd ppdev
> cryptd joy>
> [ 5343.002876] CPU: 3 PID: 797246 Comm: btrfs Not tainted
> 5.15.0-rc2-btrfs-next-99 #1
> [ 5343.002879] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996),
> BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> [ 5343.002883] RIP: 0010:close_fs_devices+0x200/0x220 [btrfs]
> [ 5343.002912] Code: 8b 43 78 48 85 c0 0f 85 89 fe ff ff e9 7e fe ff
> ff be ff ff ff ff 48 c7 c7 10 6f bd c0 e8 58 70 7d c9 85 c0 0f 85 20
> fe ff ff <0f> 0b e9 19 fe ff ff 0f 0b e9 63 ff ff ff 0f 0b e9 67 ff ff
> ff 66
> [ 5343.002914] RSP: 0018:ffffb32608fe7d38 EFLAGS: 00010246
> [ 5343.002917] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff948d78f6b538 RCX: 0000000000000001
> [ 5343.002918] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff8aabac29 RDI: ffffffff8ab2a43e
> [ 5343.002920] RBP: ffff948d78f6b400 R08: ffff948d4fcecd38 R09: 0000000000000000
> [ 5343.002921] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff948d4fcecc78
> [ 5343.002922] R13: ffff948d401bc000 R14: ffff948d78f6b400 R15: ffff948d4fcecc00
> [ 5343.002924] FS:  00007fe1259208c0(0000) GS:ffff94906d400000(0000)
> knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 5343.002926] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 5343.002927] CR2: 00007fe125a953d5 CR3: 00000001017ca005 CR4: 0000000000370ee0
> [ 5343.002930] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 5343.002932] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 5343.002933] Call Trace:
> [ 5343.002938]  btrfs_rm_device.cold+0x147/0x1c0 [btrfs]
> [ 5343.002981]  btrfs_ioctl+0x2dc2/0x3460 [btrfs]
> [ 5343.003021]  ? __do_sys_newstat+0x48/0x70
> [ 5343.003028]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xe8/0x140
> [ 5343.003034]  ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
> [ 5343.003037]  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
> [ 5343.003042]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
> [ 5343.003045]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> [ 5343.003048] RIP: 0033:0x7fe125a17d87
> [ 5343.003051] Code: 00 00 00 48 8b 05 09 91 0c 00 64 c7 00 26 00 00
> 00 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 b8 10 00 00
> 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d d9 90 0c 00 f7 d8 64 89
> 01 48
> [ 5343.003053] RSP: 002b:00007ffdbfbd11c8 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX:
> 0000000000000010
> [ 5343.003056] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffdbfbd33b0 RCX: 00007fe125a17d87
> [ 5343.003057] RDX: 00007ffdbfbd21e0 RSI: 000000005000943a RDI: 0000000000000003
> [ 5343.003059] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 006264732f766564
> [ 5343.003060] R10: fffffffffffffebb R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 0000000000000003
> [ 5343.003061] R13: 00007ffdbfbd33b0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00007ffdbfbd33b8
> [ 5343.003077] irq event stamp: 202039
> [ 5343.003079] hardirqs last  enabled at (202045):
> [<ffffffff8992d2a0>] __up_console_sem+0x60/0x70
> [ 5343.003082] hardirqs last disabled at (202050):
> [<ffffffff8992d285>] __up_console_sem+0x45/0x70
> [ 5343.003083] softirqs last  enabled at (196012):
> [<ffffffff898a0f2b>] irq_exit_rcu+0xeb/0x130
> [ 5343.003086] softirqs last disabled at (195973):
> [<ffffffff898a0f2b>] irq_exit_rcu+0xeb/0x130
> [ 5343.003090] ---[ end trace 7b957e10a906f920 ]---
>
> Happens all the time on btrfs/164 for example.
> Maybe some other patch is missing?

Also, this patch alone does not (completely at least) fix that lockdep
issue with lo_mutex and disk->open_mutex, at least not on current
misc-next.
btrfs/199 triggers this:

[ 6285.539713] run fstests btrfs/199 at 2021-09-21 13:08:09
[ 6286.090226] BTRFS info (device sda): flagging fs with big metadata feature
[ 6286.090233] BTRFS info (device sda): disk space caching is enabled
[ 6286.090236] BTRFS info (device sda): has skinny extents
[ 6286.268451] loop: module loaded
[ 6286.515848] BTRFS: device fsid b59e1692-d742-4826-bb86-11b14cd1d0b0
devid 1 transid 5 /dev/sdb scanned by mkfs.btrfs (838579)
[ 6286.566724] BTRFS info (device sdb): flagging fs with big metadata feature
[ 6286.566732] BTRFS info (device sdb): disk space caching is enabled
[ 6286.566735] BTRFS info (device sdb): has skinny extents
[ 6286.575156] BTRFS info (device sdb): checking UUID tree
[ 6286.773181] loop0: detected capacity change from 0 to 20971520
[ 6286.817351] BTRFS: device fsid d416e8f8-f18e-41c8-8038-932a871c0763
devid 1 transid 5 /dev/loop0 scanned by systemd-udevd (831305)
[ 6286.837095] BTRFS info (device loop0): flagging fs with big metadata feature
[ 6286.837101] BTRFS info (device loop0): disabling disk space caching
[ 6286.837103] BTRFS info (device loop0): setting nodatasum
[ 6286.837105] BTRFS info (device loop0): turning on sync discard
[ 6286.837107] BTRFS info (device loop0): has skinny extents
[ 6286.847904] BTRFS info (device loop0): enabling ssd optimizations
[ 6286.848767] BTRFS info (device loop0): cleaning free space cache v1
[ 6286.870143] BTRFS info (device loop0): checking UUID tree

[ 6323.701494] ======================================================
[ 6323.702261] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 6323.703033] 5.15.0-rc2-btrfs-next-99 #1 Tainted: G        W
[ 6323.703818] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 6323.704591] losetup/838700 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 6323.705225] ffff948d4bb35948 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0},
at: flush_workqueue+0x8b/0x5b0
[ 6323.706316]
               but task is already holding lock:
[ 6323.707047] ffff948d7c093ca0 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
__loop_clr_fd+0x5a/0x680 [loop]
[ 6323.708198]
               which lock already depends on the new lock.

[ 6323.709664]
               the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 6323.711007]
               -> #4 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 6323.712103]        __mutex_lock+0x92/0x900
[ 6323.712851]        lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
[ 6323.713612]        blkdev_get_whole+0x28/0x90
[ 6323.714405]        blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x142/0x320
[ 6323.715348]        blkdev_open+0x5e/0xa0
[ 6323.716057]        do_dentry_open+0x163/0x390
[ 6323.716841]        path_openat+0x3f0/0xa80
[ 6323.717585]        do_filp_open+0xa9/0x150
[ 6323.718326]        do_sys_openat2+0x97/0x160
[ 6323.719099]        __x64_sys_openat+0x54/0x90
[ 6323.719896]        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 6323.720640]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 6323.721652]
               -> #3 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 6323.722791]        __mutex_lock+0x92/0x900
[ 6323.723530]        blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x56/0x320
[ 6323.724468]        blkdev_get_by_path+0xb8/0xd0
[ 6323.725291]        btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb+0x1b/0xb0 [btrfs]
[ 6323.726344]        btrfs_find_device_by_devspec+0x154/0x1e0 [btrfs]
[ 6323.727519]        btrfs_rm_device+0x14d/0x770 [btrfs]
[ 6323.728253]        btrfs_ioctl+0x2dc2/0x3460 [btrfs]
[ 6323.728911]        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
[ 6323.729439]        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 6323.729943]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 6323.730625]
               -> #2 (sb_writers#14){.+.+}-{0:0}:
[ 6323.731367]        lo_write_bvec+0xea/0x2a0 [loop]
[ 6323.731964]        loop_process_work+0x257/0xdb0 [loop]
[ 6323.732606]        process_one_work+0x24c/0x5b0
[ 6323.733176]        worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
[ 6323.733692]        kthread+0x155/0x180
[ 6323.734157]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[ 6323.734662]
               -> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
[ 6323.735619]        process_one_work+0x223/0x5b0
[ 6323.736181]        worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
[ 6323.736708]        kthread+0x155/0x180
[ 6323.737168]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[ 6323.737671]
               -> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
[ 6323.738464]        __lock_acquire+0x130e/0x2210
[ 6323.739033]        lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
[ 6323.739539]        flush_workqueue+0xb5/0x5b0
[ 6323.740084]        drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
[ 6323.740621]        destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x280
[ 6323.741191]        __loop_clr_fd+0xb4/0x680 [loop]
[ 6323.741785]        block_ioctl+0x48/0x50
[ 6323.742272]        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
[ 6323.742800]        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 6323.743307]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 6323.743995]
               other info that might help us debug this:

[ 6323.744979] Chain exists of:
                 (wq_completion)loop0 --> &disk->open_mutex --> &lo->lo_mutex

[ 6323.746338]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[ 6323.747073]        CPU0                    CPU1
[ 6323.747628]        ----                    ----
[ 6323.748190]   lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
[ 6323.748612]                                lock(&disk->open_mutex);
[ 6323.749386]                                lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
[ 6323.750201]   lock((wq_completion)loop0);
[ 6323.750696]
                *** DEADLOCK ***

[ 6323.751415] 1 lock held by losetup/838700:
[ 6323.751925]  #0: ffff948d7c093ca0 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
__loop_clr_fd+0x5a/0x680 [loop]
[ 6323.753025]
               stack backtrace:
[ 6323.753556] CPU: 7 PID: 838700 Comm: losetup Tainted: G        W
     5.15.0-rc2-btrfs-next-99 #1
[ 6323.754659] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996),
BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[ 6323.756066] Call Trace:
[ 6323.756375]  dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
[ 6323.756842]  check_noncircular+0xf3/0x110
[ 6323.757341]  ? stack_trace_save+0x4b/0x70
[ 6323.757837]  __lock_acquire+0x130e/0x2210
[ 6323.758335]  lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
[ 6323.758769]  ? flush_workqueue+0x8b/0x5b0
[ 6323.759258]  ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x51/0x260
[ 6323.759822]  ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x51/0x260
[ 6323.760382]  flush_workqueue+0xb5/0x5b0
[ 6323.760867]  ? flush_workqueue+0x8b/0x5b0
[ 6323.761367]  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x45/0x280
[ 6323.761948]  drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
[ 6323.762426]  destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x280
[ 6323.762924]  __loop_clr_fd+0xb4/0x680 [loop]
[ 6323.763465]  ? blkdev_ioctl+0xb5/0x320
[ 6323.763935]  block_ioctl+0x48/0x50
[ 6323.764356]  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
[ 6323.764828]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 6323.765269]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 6323.765887] RIP: 0033:0x7fb0fe20dd87

>
>
> >         if (ret)
> >                 goto error_undo;
> >
> > @@ -2215,7 +2211,6 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path,
> >         }
> >
> >  out:
> > -       mutex_unlock(&uuid_mutex);
> >         return ret;
> >
> >  error_undo:
> > --
> > 2.26.3
> >
>
>
> --
> Filipe David Manana,
>
> “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”



-- 
Filipe David Manana,

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-21 12:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-27 21:01 [PATCH v2 0/7] Josef Bacik
2021-07-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] btrfs: do not call close_fs_devices in btrfs_rm_device Josef Bacik
2021-09-01  8:13   ` Anand Jain
2021-07-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] btrfs: do not take the uuid_mutex " Josef Bacik
2021-09-01 12:01   ` Anand Jain
2021-09-01 17:08     ` David Sterba
2021-09-01 17:10     ` Josef Bacik
2021-09-01 19:49       ` Anand Jain
2021-09-02 12:58   ` David Sterba
2021-09-02 14:10     ` Josef Bacik
2021-09-17 14:33       ` David Sterba
2021-09-20  7:45   ` Anand Jain
2021-09-20  8:26     ` David Sterba
2021-09-20  9:41       ` Anand Jain
2021-09-23  4:33         ` Anand Jain
2021-09-21 11:59   ` Filipe Manana
2021-09-21 12:17     ` Filipe Manana [this message]
2021-09-22 15:33       ` Filipe Manana
2021-09-23  4:15         ` Anand Jain
2021-09-23  3:58   ` [PATCH] btrfs: drop lockdep assert in close_fs_devices() Anand Jain
2021-09-23  4:04     ` Anand Jain
2021-07-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] btrfs: do not read super look for a device path Josef Bacik
2021-08-25  2:00   ` Anand Jain
2021-09-27 15:32     ` Josef Bacik
2021-09-28 11:50       ` Anand Jain
2021-07-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] btrfs: update the bdev time directly when closing Josef Bacik
2021-08-25  0:35   ` Anand Jain
2021-09-02 12:16   ` David Sterba
2021-07-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] btrfs: delay blkdev_put until after the device remove Josef Bacik
2021-08-25  1:00   ` Anand Jain
2021-09-02 12:16   ` David Sterba
2021-07-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] btrfs: unify common code for the v1 and v2 versions of " Josef Bacik
2021-08-25  1:19   ` Anand Jain
2021-09-01 14:05   ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-07-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] btrfs: do not take the device_list_mutex in clone_fs_devices Josef Bacik
2021-08-24 22:08   ` Anand Jain
2021-09-01 13:35   ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-09-02 12:59   ` David Sterba
2021-09-17 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] David Sterba

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAL3q7H7Ohy+vHmVu2s4nJa9Kj4U4aRgUZ2U7kSxOGC0kqJdYjw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=fdmanana@gmail.com \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] btrfs: do not take the uuid_mutex in btrfs_rm_device' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.