2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-06-03 11:36:02 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-20 13:20:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-19 14:55:00 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:32 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:32 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-14 18:33:02 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:12 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-08 09:01:03 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-16 12:10:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-29 14:17:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-14 18:33:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:12 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-14 18:33:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-26 15:36:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:12 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-10-13 12:42:12 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-10-13 12:42:12 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2014-10-13 12:42:12 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:32 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-24 18:48:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2016-05-19 21:18:45 -04:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-20 15:11:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-10 18:16:38 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-06 13:55:01 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2013-01-22 10:49:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-26 15:36:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:43 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-16 12:10:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-08 09:01:03 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-01-30 16:46:54 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:43 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-10-13 12:42:12 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-08 09:01:03 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2016-05-03 17:44:43 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:44 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-08-20 16:10:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-10-30 16:52:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2013-10-02 20:41:01 +03:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-01-30 16:46:54 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:43 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2014-10-30 16:52:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-14 18:32:49 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-10-30 16:52:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-06-03 10:55:48 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-16 17:21:12 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-10 20:40:21 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-16 12:10:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-16 12:10:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-07-15 11:20:32 +09:30
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-11 10:49:42 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-16 17:21:12 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-08 09:01:03 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 11:37:06 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-03 21:35:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-04 11:23:12 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace
Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,
[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955] (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955] (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock
[ 1226.652955] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1226.652955] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1226.652955] ---- ----
[ 1226.652955] lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955] local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955] lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955] <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955] lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
*** DEADLOCK ***
Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.
The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
->btrfs_run_delayed_items
...
->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
...
->__btrfs_cow_block
...
->find_free_extent
->cache_block_group
->load_free_space_cache
->btrfs_readpages
->submit_one_bio
...
->__btrfs_map_block
->btrfs_dev_replace_lock
However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955] [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700
delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.
To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.
With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2015-07-17 16:49:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-11-05 17:33:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-25 16:39:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-25 16:39:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-20 15:11:37 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btrfs: fix use-after-free in the finishing procedure of the device replace
During device replace test, we hit a null pointer deference (It was very easy
to reproduce it by running xfstests' btrfs/011 on the devices with the virtio
scsi driver). There were two bugs that caused this problem:
- We might allocate new chunks on the replaced device after we updated
the mapping tree. And we forgot to replace the source device in those
mapping of the new chunks.
- We might get the mapping information which including the source device
before the mapping information update. And then submit the bio which was
based on that mapping information after we freed the source device.
For the first bug, we can fix it by doing mapping tree update and source
device remove in the same context of the chunk mutex. The chunk mutex is
used to protect the allocable device list, the above method can avoid
the new chunk allocation, and after we remove the source device, all
the new chunks will be allocated on the new device. So it can fix
the first bug.
For the second bug, we need make sure all flighting bios are finished and
no new bios are produced during we are removing the source device. To fix
this problem, we introduced a global @bio_counter, we not only inc/dec
@bio_counter outsize of map_blocks, but also inc it before submitting bio
and dec @bio_counter when ending bios.
Since Raid56 is a little different and device replace dosen't support raid56
yet, it is not addressed in the patch and I add comments to make sure we will
fix it in the future.
Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
2014-01-30 16:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
