From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B634FFA372B for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7EC20872 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:03:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1571263432; bh=M7Z3dwqYM06dpw77YIA4d26k0+89rU26bzG1+CYvuY4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=m9WxKg4wkVYwNB+W7a4lMDfMaRuHQkGbnUaCywWk+w0UTChK9pjEhjYcLkf+HcyXw oRA6vskh+qX9JH1ifhNka9HcN9Vj/I6KkCXDOmY+wMj41JMwa33Co+JW0gMidEeITL 4Nb7bDHTCaDX1kPMfbPAQMdFjwOUj5y61rSO6zKo= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2438456AbfJPV7R (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:59:17 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53852 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2438450AbfJPV7Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:59:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [192.55.54.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDF0E218DE; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:59:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1571263156; bh=M7Z3dwqYM06dpw77YIA4d26k0+89rU26bzG1+CYvuY4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RUYZeDbd55pVf5w5kQNvhvLMb+7GfHoV25z6kQqi7c4NuHd7m9zEAD+sXdm6b3GNZ lpuO81j7WX7po5Wk3qrXUZR5/TXZLs0qRDQOJ0sYyPPZSdhpx49wm+9K3GGFs8/vVs DvksPbqRHihwbB7+dduIulxCTx8OtD6j9RrdkX9o= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 5.3 084/112] btrfs: allocate new inode in NOFS context Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:51:16 -0700 Message-Id: <20191016214904.868190389@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.23.0 In-Reply-To: <20191016214844.038848564@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20191016214844.038848564@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org From: Josef Bacik commit 11a19a90870ea5496a8ded69b86f5b476b6d3355 upstream. 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); --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@ -6276,13 +6276,16 @@ static struct inode *btrfs_new_inode(str 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);