I got the following lockdep splat while testing:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.8.0-rc7-00172-g021118712e59 #932 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/229626 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffffff828513f0 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450
but task is already holding lock:
ffff889dd3889518 (&fs_info->scrub_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_scrub_dev+0x11c/0x630
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #7 (&fs_info->scrub_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930
btrfs_scrub_dev+0x11c/0x630
btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl.cold.21+0x10a/0x1d4
btrfs_ioctl+0x2799/0x30a0
ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #6 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930
btrfs_run_dev_stats+0x49/0x480
commit_cowonly_roots+0xb5/0x2a0
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x516/0xa60
sync_filesystem+0x6b/0x90
generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100
kill_anon_super+0xe/0x30
btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20
deactivate_locked_super+0x29/0x60
cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140
task_work_run+0x6d/0xb0
__prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x1cc/0x1e0
do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #5 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x4bb/0xa60
sync_filesystem+0x6b/0x90
generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100
kill_anon_super+0xe/0x30
btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20
deactivate_locked_super+0x29/0x60
cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140
task_work_run+0x6d/0xb0
__prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x1cc/0x1e0
do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #4 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930
btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x43/0x70
start_transaction+0xd1/0x5d0
btrfs_dirty_inode+0x42/0xd0
touch_atime+0xa1/0xd0
btrfs_file_mmap+0x3f/0x60
mmap_region+0x3a4/0x640
do_mmap+0x376/0x580
vm_mmap_pgoff+0xd5/0x120
ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x193/0x230
do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #3 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}:
__might_fault+0x68/0x90
_copy_to_user+0x1e/0x80
perf_read+0x141/0x2c0
vfs_read+0xad/0x1b0
ksys_read+0x5f/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #2 (&cpuctx_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930
perf_event_init_cpu+0x88/0x150
perf_event_init+0x1db/0x20b
start_kernel+0x3ae/0x53c
secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
-> #1 (pmus_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930
perf_event_init_cpu+0x4f/0x150
cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xb1/0x900
_cpu_up.constprop.26+0x9f/0x130
cpu_up+0x7b/0xc0
bringup_nonboot_cpus+0x4f/0x60
smp_init+0x26/0x71
kernel_init_freeable+0x110/0x258
kernel_init+0xa/0x103
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310
lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360
cpus_read_lock+0x39/0xb0
alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450
__btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x15d/0x200
btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x51/0x160
scrub_workers_get+0x5a/0x170
btrfs_scrub_dev+0x18c/0x630
btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl.cold.21+0x10a/0x1d4
btrfs_ioctl+0x2799/0x30a0
ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
cpu_hotplug_lock --> &fs_devs->device_list_mutex --> &fs_info->scrub_lock
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
lock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
2 locks held by btrfs/229626:
#0: ffff88bfe8bb86e0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_scrub_dev+0xbd/0x630
#1: ffff889dd3889518 (&fs_info->scrub_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_scrub_dev+0x11c/0x630
stack backtrace:
CPU: 15 PID: 229626 Comm: btrfs Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.8.0-rc7-00172-g021118712e59 #932
Hardware name: Quanta Tioga Pass Single Side 01-0030993006/Tioga Pass Single Side, BIOS F08_3A18 12/20/2018
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x78/0xa0
check_noncircular+0x165/0x180
__lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310
lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360
? alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450
cpus_read_lock+0x39/0xb0
? alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450
alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x80
__btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x15d/0x200
btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x51/0x160
scrub_workers_get+0x5a/0x170
btrfs_scrub_dev+0x18c/0x630
? start_transaction+0xd1/0x5d0
btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl.cold.21+0x10a/0x1d4
btrfs_ioctl+0x2799/0x30a0
? do_sigaction+0x102/0x250
? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0xca/0x160
? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x30
? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0xe0
? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x30
? do_sigaction+0x102/0x250
? ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0
ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
This happens because we're allocating the scrub workqueues under the
scrub and device list mutex, which brings in a whole host of other
dependencies.
Because the work queue allocation is done with GFP_KERNEL, it can
trigger reclaim, which can lead to a transaction commit, which in turns
needs the device_list_mutex, it can lead to a deadlock. A different
problem for which this fix is a solution.
Fix this by moving the actual allocation outside of the
scrub lock, and then only take the lock once we're ready to actually
assign them to the fs_info. We'll now have to cleanup the workqueues in
a few more places, so I've added a helper to do the refcount dance to
safely free the workqueues.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
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>
e89c4a9c8e