I got the following lockdep splat with tree locks converted to rwsem
patches on btrfs/104:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.9.0+ #102 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs-cleaner/903 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8e7fab6ffe30 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8e7fab628a88 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_find_all_roots+0x41/0x80
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}:
down_read+0x40/0x130
caching_thread+0x53/0x5a0
btrfs_work_helper+0xfa/0x520
process_one_work+0x238/0x540
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x13a/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #2 (&caching_ctl->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7b0
btrfs_cache_block_group+0x1e0/0x510
find_free_extent+0xb6e/0x12f0
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb1/0x330
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4f/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11d/0x580
btrfs_cow_block+0x10c/0x220
commit_cowonly_roots+0x47/0x2e0
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x595/0xbd0
sync_filesystem+0x74/0x90
generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100
kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30
btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20
deactivate_locked_super+0x36/0xa0
cleanup_mnt+0x12d/0x190
task_work_run+0x5c/0xa0
exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1df/0x200
syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x54/0x280
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #1 (&space_info->groups_sem){++++}-{3:3}:
down_read+0x40/0x130
find_free_extent+0x2ed/0x12f0
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb1/0x330
alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4f/0x60
__btrfs_cow_block+0x11d/0x580
btrfs_cow_block+0x10c/0x220
commit_cowonly_roots+0x47/0x2e0
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x595/0xbd0
sync_filesystem+0x74/0x90
generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100
kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30
btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20
deactivate_locked_super+0x36/0xa0
cleanup_mnt+0x12d/0x190
task_work_run+0x5c/0xa0
exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1df/0x200
syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x54/0x280
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1167/0x2150
lock_acquire+0xb9/0x3d0
down_read_nested+0x43/0x130
__btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
__btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x614/0x9d0
btrfs_find_root+0x35/0x1b0
btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x120
btrfs_get_root_ref+0x14b/0x600
find_parent_nodes+0x3e6/0x1b30
btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0xb4/0x130
btrfs_find_all_roots+0x60/0x80
btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post+0x27/0x40
btrfs_add_delayed_data_ref+0x3fd/0x460
btrfs_free_extent+0x42/0x100
__btrfs_mod_ref+0x1d7/0x2f0
walk_up_proc+0x11c/0x400
walk_up_tree+0xf0/0x180
btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x1c7/0x780
btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0xfb/0x110
cleaner_kthread+0xd4/0x140
kthread+0x13a/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
btrfs-root-00 --> &caching_ctl->mutex --> &fs_info->commit_root_sem
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
lock(&caching_ctl->mutex);
lock(&fs_info->commit_root_sem);
lock(btrfs-root-00);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by btrfs-cleaner/903:
#0: ffff8e7fab628838 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cleaner_kthread+0x6e/0x140
#1: ffff8e7faadac640 (sb_internal){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: start_transaction+0x40b/0x5c0
#2: ffff8e7fab628a88 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_find_all_roots+0x41/0x80
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 903 Comm: btrfs-cleaner Not tainted 5.9.0+ #102
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x8b/0xb0
check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0
__lock_acquire+0x1167/0x2150
? __bfs+0x42/0x210
lock_acquire+0xb9/0x3d0
? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
down_read_nested+0x43/0x130
? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
__btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x170
__btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x614/0x9d0
? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
btrfs_find_root+0x35/0x1b0
? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4b/0xa0
btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x120
btrfs_get_root_ref+0x14b/0x600
find_parent_nodes+0x3e6/0x1b30
btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0xb4/0x130
btrfs_find_all_roots+0x60/0x80
btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post+0x27/0x40
btrfs_add_delayed_data_ref+0x3fd/0x460
btrfs_free_extent+0x42/0x100
__btrfs_mod_ref+0x1d7/0x2f0
walk_up_proc+0x11c/0x400
walk_up_tree+0xf0/0x180
btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x1c7/0x780
? btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0x73/0x110
btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0xfb/0x110
cleaner_kthread+0xd4/0x140
? btrfs_alloc_root+0x50/0x50
kthread+0x13a/0x150
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x40/0x40
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
BTRFS info (device sdb): disk space caching is enabled
BTRFS info (device sdb): has skinny extents
This happens because qgroups does a backref lookup when we create a
delayed ref. From here it may have to look up a root from an indirect
ref, which does a normal lookup on the tree_root, which takes the read
lock on the tree_root nodes.
To fix this we need to add a variant for looking up roots that searches
the commit root of the tree_root. Then when we do the backref search
using the commit root we are sure to not take any locks on the tree_root
nodes. This gets rid of the lockdep splat when running btrfs/104.
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
49d11bead7