From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com, fdmanana@suse.com,
zsojka@seznam.cz
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: allocate new inode in NOFS context" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 06:27:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <157123246618677@kroah.com> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 11a19a90870ea5496a8ded69b86f5b476b6d3355 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:12:04 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: allocate new inode in NOFS context
A user reported a lockdep splat
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.2.11-gentoo #2 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/711 is trying to acquire lock:
000000007777a663 (sb_internal){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
but task is already holding lock:
000000000ba86300 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}:
kmem_cache_alloc+0x1f/0x1c0
btrfs_alloc_inode+0x1f/0x260
alloc_inode+0x16/0xa0
new_inode+0xe/0xb0
btrfs_new_inode+0x70/0x610
btrfs_symlink+0xd0/0x420
vfs_symlink+0x9c/0x100
do_symlinkat+0x66/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0x55/0x1c0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
-> #0 (sb_internal){.+.+}:
__sb_start_write+0xf6/0x150
start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x59/0x110
btrfs_evict_inode+0x19e/0x4c0
evict+0xbc/0x1f0
inode_lru_isolate+0x113/0x190
__list_lru_walk_one.isra.4+0x5c/0x100
list_lru_walk_one+0x32/0x50
prune_icache_sb+0x36/0x80
super_cache_scan+0x14a/0x1d0
do_shrink_slab+0x131/0x320
shrink_node+0xf7/0x380
balance_pgdat+0x2d5/0x640
kswapd+0x2ba/0x5e0
kthread+0x147/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(sb_internal);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(sb_internal);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kswapd0/711:
#0: 000000000ba86300 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
#1: 000000004a5100f8 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_node+0x9a/0x380
#2: 00000000f956fa46 (&type->s_umount_key#30){++++}, at: super_cache_scan+0x35/0x1d0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 7 PID: 711 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.2.11-gentoo #2
Hardware name: Dell Inc. Precision Tower 3620/0MWYPT, BIOS 2.4.2 09/29/2017
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x85/0xc7
print_circular_bug.cold.40+0x1d9/0x235
__lock_acquire+0x18b1/0x1f00
lock_acquire+0xa6/0x170
? start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
__sb_start_write+0xf6/0x150
? start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x59/0x110
btrfs_evict_inode+0x19e/0x4c0
? var_wake_function+0x20/0x20
evict+0xbc/0x1f0
inode_lru_isolate+0x113/0x190
? discard_new_inode+0xc0/0xc0
__list_lru_walk_one.isra.4+0x5c/0x100
? discard_new_inode+0xc0/0xc0
list_lru_walk_one+0x32/0x50
prune_icache_sb+0x36/0x80
super_cache_scan+0x14a/0x1d0
do_shrink_slab+0x131/0x320
shrink_node+0xf7/0x380
balance_pgdat+0x2d5/0x640
kswapd+0x2ba/0x5e0
? __wake_up_common_lock+0x90/0x90
kthread+0x147/0x160
? balance_pgdat+0x640/0x640
? __kthread_create_on_node+0x160/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
This is because btrfs_new_inode() calls new_inode() under the
transaction. We could probably move the new_inode() outside of this but
for now just wrap it in memalloc_nofs_save().
Reported-by: Zdenek Sojka <zsojka@seznam.cz>
Fixes: 712e36c5f2a7 ("btrfs: use GFP_KERNEL in btrfs_alloc_inode")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.16+
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index a0546401bc0a..0f2754eaa05b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -6305,13 +6305,16 @@ static struct inode *btrfs_new_inode(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
u32 sizes[2];
int nitems = name ? 2 : 1;
unsigned long ptr;
+ unsigned int nofs_flag;
int ret;
path = btrfs_alloc_path();
if (!path)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+ nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
inode = new_inode(fs_info->sb);
+ memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag);
if (!inode) {
btrfs_free_path(path);
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
reply other threads:[~2019-10-16 13:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=157123246618677@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=fdmanana@suse.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zsojka@seznam.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.