commit 597441b3436a43011f31ce71dc0a6c0bf5ce958a upstream.
Our CI system caught a lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.3.0-rc7+ #1167 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/46 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8c6543abd650 (sb_internal#2){++++}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffffabe61b40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0x4aa/0x7a0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire+0xa5/0xe0
kmem_cache_alloc+0x31/0x2c0
alloc_extent_state+0x1d/0xd0
__clear_extent_bit+0x2e0/0x4f0
try_release_extent_mapping+0x216/0x280
btrfs_release_folio+0x2e/0x90
invalidate_inode_pages2_range+0x397/0x470
btrfs_cleanup_dirty_bgs+0x9e/0x210
btrfs_cleanup_one_transaction+0x22/0x760
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x3b7/0x13a0
create_subvol+0x59b/0x970
btrfs_mksubvol+0x435/0x4f0
__btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x11e/0x1b0
btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xbf/0x140
btrfs_ioctl+0xa45/0x28f0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
-> #0 (sb_internal#2){++++}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x1435/0x21a0
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2b0
start_transaction+0x401/0x730
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x292/0x3d0
evict+0xcc/0x1d0
inode_lru_isolate+0x14d/0x1e0
__list_lru_walk_one+0xbe/0x1c0
list_lru_walk_one+0x58/0x80
prune_icache_sb+0x39/0x60
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1f0
do_shrink_slab+0x163/0x340
shrink_slab+0x1d3/0x290
shrink_node+0x300/0x720
balance_pgdat+0x35c/0x7a0
kswapd+0x205/0x410
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(sb_internal#2);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(sb_internal#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kswapd0/46:
#0: ffffffffabe61b40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0x4aa/0x7a0
#1: ffffffffabe50270 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x113/0x290
#2: ffff8c6543abd0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#44){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1f0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 46 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 6.3.0-rc7+ #1167
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x58/0x90
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? save_trace+0x3f/0x310
? add_lock_to_list+0x97/0x120
__lock_acquire+0x1435/0x21a0
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2b0
? btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
start_transaction+0x401/0x730
? btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x120
btrfs_evict_inode+0x292/0x3d0
? lock_release+0x134/0x270
? __pfx_wake_bit_function+0x10/0x10
evict+0xcc/0x1d0
inode_lru_isolate+0x14d/0x1e0
__list_lru_walk_one+0xbe/0x1c0
? __pfx_inode_lru_isolate+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_inode_lru_isolate+0x10/0x10
list_lru_walk_one+0x58/0x80
prune_icache_sb+0x39/0x60
super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1f0
do_shrink_slab+0x163/0x340
shrink_slab+0x1d3/0x290
shrink_node+0x300/0x720
balance_pgdat+0x35c/0x7a0
kswapd+0x205/0x410
? __pfx_autoremove_wake_function+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_kswapd+0x10/0x10
kthread+0xf0/0x120
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
</TASK>
This happens because when we abort the transaction in the transaction
commit path we call invalidate_inode_pages2_range on our block group
cache inodes (if we have space cache v1) and any delalloc inodes we may
have. The plain invalidate_inode_pages2_range() call passes through
GFP_KERNEL, which makes sense in most cases, but not here. Wrap these
two invalidate callees with memalloc_nofs_save/memalloc_nofs_restore to
make sure we don't end up with the fs reclaim dependency under the
transaction dependency.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.14+
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
937264cd9a