You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
btrfs: use nofs when cleaning up aborted transactions
Our CI system caught a lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.3.0-rc7+ #1167 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/46 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8c6543abd650 (sb_internal#2){++++}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffffabe61b40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0x4aa/0x7a0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire+0xa5/0xe0
kmem_cache_alloc+0x31/0x2c0
alloc_extent_state+0x1d/0xd0
__clear_extent_bit+0x2e0/0x4f0
try_release_extent_mapping+0x216/0x280
btrfs_release_folio+0x2e/0x90
invalidate_inode_pages2_range+0x397/0x470
btrfs_cleanup_dirty_bgs+0x9e/0x210
btrfs_cleanup_one_transaction+0x22/0x760
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x3b7/0x13a0
create_subvol+0x59b/0x970
btrfs_mksubvol+0x435/0x4f0
__btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x11e/0x1b0
btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xbf/0x140
btrfs_ioctl+0xa45/0x28f0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
-> #0 (sb_internal#2){++++}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x1435/0x21a0
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2b0
start_transaction+0x401/0x730
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x292/0x3d0
evict+0xcc/0x1d0
inode_lru_isolate+0x14d/0x1e0
__list_lru_walk_one+0xbe/0x1c0
list_lru_walk_one+0x58/0x80
prune_icache_sb+0x39/0x60
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1f0
do_shrink_slab+0x163/0x340
shrink_slab+0x1d3/0x290
shrink_node+0x300/0x720
balance_pgdat+0x35c/0x7a0
kswapd+0x205/0x410
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(sb_internal#2);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(sb_internal#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kswapd0/46:
#0: ffffffffabe61b40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0x4aa/0x7a0
#1: ffffffffabe50270 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x113/0x290
#2: ffff8c6543abd0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#44){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1f0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 46 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 6.3.0-rc7+ #1167
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x58/0x90
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? save_trace+0x3f/0x310
? add_lock_to_list+0x97/0x120
__lock_acquire+0x1435/0x21a0
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2b0
? btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
start_transaction+0x401/0x730
? btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x292/0x3d0
? lock_release+0x134/0x270
? __pfx_wake_bit_function+0x10/0x10
evict+0xcc/0x1d0
inode_lru_isolate+0x14d/0x1e0
__list_lru_walk_one+0xbe/0x1c0
? __pfx_inode_lru_isolate+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_inode_lru_isolate+0x10/0x10
list_lru_walk_one+0x58/0x80
prune_icache_sb+0x39/0x60
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1f0
do_shrink_slab+0x163/0x340
shrink_slab+0x1d3/0x290
shrink_node+0x300/0x720
balance_pgdat+0x35c/0x7a0
kswapd+0x205/0x410
? __pfx_autoremove_wake_function+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_kswapd+0x10/0x10
kthread+0xf0/0x120
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
</TASK>
This happens because when we abort the transaction in the transaction
commit path we call invalidate_inode_pages2_range on our block group
cache inodes (if we have space cache v1) and any delalloc inodes we may
have. The plain invalidate_inode_pages2_range() call passes through
GFP_KERNEL, which makes sense in most cases, but not here. Wrap these
two invalidate callees with memalloc_nofs_save/memalloc_nofs_restore to
make sure we don't end up with the fs reclaim dependency under the
transaction dependency.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.14+
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
0 commit comments