Nikolay reported a lockdep splat in generic/476 that I could reproduce
with btrfs/187.
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.9.0-rc2+ #1 Tainted: G W
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/100 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff9e8ef38b6268 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffffa9d74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire+0x65/0x80
slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x20/0x200
kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x3a/0x1a0
btrfs_alloc_device+0x43/0x210
add_missing_dev+0x20/0x90
read_one_chunk+0x301/0x430
btrfs_read_sys_array+0x17b/0x1b0
open_ctree+0xa62/0x1896
btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x12/0xea
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0xb0
btrfs_mount+0x10d/0x379
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
path_mount+0x434/0xc00
__x64_sys_mount+0xe3/0x120
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x125/0x3a0
find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530
btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220
btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0x8f
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x80/0x240
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x119/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x357/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
vfs_rmdir.part.0+0x149/0x160
do_rmdir+0x136/0x1a0
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1184/0x1fa0
lock_acquire+0xa4/0x3d0
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
kthread+0x138/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&delayed_node->mutex --> &fs_info->chunk_mutex --> fs_reclaim
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kswapd0/100:
#0: ffffffffa9d74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
#1: ffffffffa9d65c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x115/0x290
#2: ffff9e8e9da260e0 (&type->s_umount_key#48){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1e0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 100 Comm: kswapd0 Tainted: G W 5.9.0-rc2+ #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x92/0xc8
check_noncircular+0x12d/0x150
__lock_acquire+0x1184/0x1fa0
lock_acquire+0xa4/0x3d0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
? lock_acquire+0xa4/0x3d0
? btrfs_evict_inode+0x11e/0x500
? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
__btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330
btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500
evict+0xcf/0x1f0
dispose_list+0x48/0x70
prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0
do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0
shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290
shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0
balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670
kswapd+0x213/0x4c0
? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x46/0x60
? add_wait_queue_exclusive+0x70/0x70
? balance_pgdat+0x670/0x670
kthread+0x138/0x160
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x40/0x40
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
This is because we are holding the chunk_mutex when we call
btrfs_alloc_device, which does a GFP_KERNEL allocation. We don't want
to switch that to a GFP_NOFS lock because this is the only place where
it matters. So instead use memalloc_nofs_save() around the allocation
in order to avoid the lockdep splat.
Reported-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
fccc0007b8