From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under any locks
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 17:40:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f140cd79a9738e72fc6da6ef4ba3635962dbf9c.1598996236.git.josef@toxicpanda.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1598996236.git.josef@toxicpanda.com>
While running xfstests btrfs/177 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
problematic because while restriping we're holding the chunk_mutex, and
while mounting we're holding the tree locks.
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.
On mount it's more straightforward, we loop through the space_info's
already, just check every raid index in each space_info and added the
sysfs entries for the corresponding block groups.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
---
fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
index a3b27204371c..2dbdf6ef568e 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
@@ -1766,16 +1766,10 @@ static void link_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *cache)
{
struct btrfs_space_info *space_info = cache->space_info;
int index = btrfs_bg_flags_to_raid_index(cache->flags);
- bool first = false;
down_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
- if (list_empty(&space_info->block_groups[index]))
- first = true;
list_add_tail(&cache->list, &space_info->block_groups[index]);
up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
-
- if (first)
- btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type(cache);
}
static struct btrfs_block_group *btrfs_create_block_group_cache(
@@ -2032,6 +2026,17 @@ int btrfs_read_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
}
list_for_each_entry(space_info, &info->space_info, list) {
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < BTRFS_NR_RAID_TYPES; i++) {
+ if (list_empty(&space_info->block_groups[i]))
+ continue;
+ cache = list_first_entry(&space_info->block_groups[i],
+ struct btrfs_block_group,
+ list);
+ btrfs_sysfs_add_block_group_type(cache);
+ }
+
if (!(btrfs_get_alloc_profile(info, space_info->flags) &
(BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10 |
BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1_MASK |
@@ -2091,12 +2096,16 @@ 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);
@@ -2105,6 +2114,16 @@ 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);
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-01 21:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-01 21:40 [PATCH 0/4][v2] Lockdep fixes Josef Bacik
2020-09-01 21:40 ` [PATCH 1/4] btrfs: fix lockdep splat in add_missing_dev Josef Bacik
2020-09-02 6:23 ` Anand Jain
2020-09-03 11:17 ` David Sterba
2020-09-01 21:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] btrfs: init sysfs for devices outside of the chunk_mutex Josef Bacik
2020-09-02 6:21 ` Anand Jain
2020-09-02 17:45 ` David Sterba
2020-09-03 11:41 ` Anand Jain
2020-09-03 11:42 ` Anand Jain
2020-09-03 11:18 ` David Sterba
2020-09-01 21:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] btrfs: kill the rcu protection for fs_info->space_info Josef Bacik
2020-09-02 8:04 ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-02 10:32 ` David Sterba
2020-09-01 21:40 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2020-09-08 12:40 ` [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: do not create raid sysfs entries under any locks David Sterba
2020-09-08 12:52 ` Josef Bacik
2020-09-04 14:20 ` [PATCH 0/4][v2] Lockdep fixes David Sterba
2020-09-07 13:05 ` 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=2f140cd79a9738e72fc6da6ef4ba3635962dbf9c.1598996236.git.josef@toxicpanda.com \
--to=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).