From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: use nofs allocations for running delayed items" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:08:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200415190817.GJ1068@sasha-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1586873819993@kroah.com>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:16:59PM +0200, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
>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 351cbf6e4410e7ece05e35d0a07320538f2418b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
>Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:11:32 -0400
>Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: use nofs allocations for running delayed items
>
>Zygo reported the following lockdep splat while testing the balance
>patches
>
>======================================================
>WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>5.6.0-c6f0579d496a+ #53 Not tainted
>------------------------------------------------------
>kswapd0/1133 is trying to acquire lock:
>ffff888092f622c0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x7c/0x5b0
>
>but task is already holding lock:
>ffffffff8fc5f860 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
>
>which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
>-> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}:
> fs_reclaim_acquire.part.91+0x29/0x30
> fs_reclaim_acquire+0x19/0x20
> kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x32/0x740
> add_block_entry+0x45/0x260
> btrfs_ref_tree_mod+0x6e2/0x8b0
> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x789/0x880
> alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0xc6/0xf0
> __btrfs_cow_block+0x270/0x940
> btrfs_cow_block+0x1ba/0x3a0
> btrfs_search_slot+0x999/0x1030
> btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x81/0xe0
> btrfs_insert_delayed_items+0x128/0x7d0
> __btrfs_run_delayed_items+0xf4/0x2a0
> btrfs_run_delayed_items+0x13/0x20
> btrfs_commit_transaction+0x5cc/0x1390
> insert_balance_item.isra.39+0x6b2/0x6e0
> btrfs_balance+0x72d/0x18d0
> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x3de/0x4c0
> btrfs_ioctl+0x30ab/0x44a0
> ksys_ioctl+0xa1/0xe0
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x43/0x50
> do_syscall_64+0x77/0x2c0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>
>-> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x197e/0x2550
> lock_acquire+0x103/0x220
> __mutex_lock+0x13d/0xce0
> mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x7c/0x5b0
> btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x49/0x50
> btrfs_evict_inode+0x6fc/0x900
> evict+0x19a/0x2c0
> dispose_list+0xa0/0xe0
> prune_icache_sb+0xbd/0xf0
> super_cache_scan+0x1b5/0x250
> do_shrink_slab+0x1f6/0x530
> shrink_slab+0x32e/0x410
> shrink_node+0x2a5/0xba0
> balance_pgdat+0x4bd/0x8a0
> kswapd+0x35a/0x800
> kthread+0x1e9/0x210
> ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>
>other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(fs_reclaim);
> lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
> lock(fs_reclaim);
> lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
>3 locks held by kswapd0/1133:
> #0: ffffffff8fc5f860 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30
> #1: ffffffff8fc380d8 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_slab+0x1e8/0x410
> #2: ffff8881e0e6c0e8 (&type->s_umount_key#42){++++}, at: trylock_super+0x1b/0x70
>
>stack backtrace:
>CPU: 2 PID: 1133 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.6.0-c6f0579d496a+ #53
>Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014
>Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0xc1/0x11a
> print_circular_bug.isra.38.cold.57+0x145/0x14a
> check_noncircular+0x2a9/0x2f0
> ? print_circular_bug.isra.38+0x130/0x130
> ? stack_trace_consume_entry+0x90/0x90
> ? save_trace+0x3cc/0x420
> __lock_acquire+0x197e/0x2550
> ? btrfs_inode_clear_file_extent_range+0x9b/0xb0
> ? register_lock_class+0x960/0x960
> lock_acquire+0x103/0x220
> ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x7c/0x5b0
> __mutex_lock+0x13d/0xce0
> ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x7c/0x5b0
> ? __asan_loadN+0xf/0x20
> ? pvclock_clocksource_read+0xeb/0x190
> ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x7c/0x5b0
> ? mutex_lock_io_nested+0xc20/0xc20
> ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
> ? check_chain_key+0x1e6/0x2e0
> mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> ? mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x7c/0x5b0
> btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x49/0x50
> btrfs_evict_inode+0x6fc/0x900
> ? btrfs_setattr+0x840/0x840
> ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa8/0x140
> evict+0x19a/0x2c0
> dispose_list+0xa0/0xe0
> prune_icache_sb+0xbd/0xf0
> ? invalidate_inodes+0x310/0x310
> super_cache_scan+0x1b5/0x250
> do_shrink_slab+0x1f6/0x530
> shrink_slab+0x32e/0x410
> ? do_shrink_slab+0x530/0x530
> ? do_shrink_slab+0x530/0x530
> ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
> ? mem_cgroup_protected+0x13d/0x260
> shrink_node+0x2a5/0xba0
> balance_pgdat+0x4bd/0x8a0
> ? mem_cgroup_shrink_node+0x490/0x490
> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x27/0x40
> ? finish_task_switch+0xce/0x390
> ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
> kswapd+0x35a/0x800
> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x4c/0x60
> ? balance_pgdat+0x8a0/0x8a0
> ? finish_wait+0x110/0x110
> ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
> ? __kthread_parkme+0xc6/0xe0
> ? balance_pgdat+0x8a0/0x8a0
> kthread+0x1e9/0x210
> ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0xc0/0xc0
> ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>
>This is because we hold that delayed node's mutex while doing tree
>operations. Fix this by just wrapping the searches in nofs.
>
>CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+
>Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
>Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
>Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
For kernels newer then 4.9 it was just a context conflict in the
inclusion directives with 602cbe91fb01 ("btrfs: move cond_wake_up
functions out of ctree").
4.9 and 4.4 don't have the memalloc_nofs_save() api and require a more
complex backport of 7dea19f9ee63 ("mm: introduce
memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API") which I haven't attempted.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-15 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-14 14:16 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: use nofs allocations for running delayed items" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree gregkh
2020-04-15 19:08 ` Sasha Levin [this message]
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=20200415190817.GJ1068@sasha-vm \
--to=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is 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.