From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
commit fcc99734d1d4ced30167eb02e17f656735cb9928 upstream.
[BUG]
One run of btrfs/063 triggered the following lockdep warning:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.6.0-rc7-custom+ #48 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
kworker/u24:0/7 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88817d3a46e0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88817d3a46e0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs]
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(sb_internal#2);
lock(sb_internal#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
4 locks held by kworker/u24:0/7:
#0: ffff88817b495948 ((wq_completion)btrfs-endio-write){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x557/0xb80
#1: ffff888189ea7db8 ((work_completion)(&work->normal_work)){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x557/0xb80
#2: ffff88817d3a46e0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs]
#3: ffff888174ca4da8 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}, at: btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x83/0xd0 [btrfs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 7 Comm: kworker/u24:0 Not tainted 5.6.0-rc7-custom+ #48
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
Workqueue: btrfs-endio-write btrfs_work_helper [btrfs]
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0xc2/0x11a
__lock_acquire.cold+0xce/0x214
lock_acquire+0xe6/0x210
__sb_start_write+0x14e/0x290
start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs]
btrfs_join_transaction+0x1d/0x20 [btrfs]
find_free_extent+0x1504/0x1a50 [btrfs]
btrfs_reserve_extent+0xd5/0x1f0 [btrfs]
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x1ac/0x570 [btrfs]
btrfs_copy_root+0x213/0x580 [btrfs]
create_reloc_root+0x3bd/0x470 [btrfs]
btrfs_init_reloc_root+0x2d2/0x310 [btrfs]
record_root_in_trans+0x191/0x1d0 [btrfs]
btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x90/0xd0 [btrfs]
start_transaction+0x16e/0x890 [btrfs]
btrfs_join_transaction+0x1d/0x20 [btrfs]
btrfs_finish_ordered_io+0x55d/0xcd0 [btrfs]
finish_ordered_fn+0x15/0x20 [btrfs]
btrfs_work_helper+0x116/0x9a0 [btrfs]
process_one_work+0x632/0xb80
worker_thread+0x80/0x690
kthread+0x1a3/0x1f0
ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
It's pretty hard to reproduce, only one hit so far.
[CAUSE]
This is because we're calling btrfs_join_transaction() without re-using
the current running one:
btrfs_finish_ordered_io()
|- btrfs_join_transaction() <<< Call #1
|- btrfs_record_root_in_trans()
|- btrfs_reserve_extent()
|- btrfs_join_transaction() <<< Call #2
Normally such btrfs_join_transaction() call should re-use the existing
one, without trying to re-start a transaction.
But the problem is, in btrfs_join_transaction() call #1, we call
btrfs_record_root_in_trans() before initializing current::journal_info.
And in btrfs_join_transaction() call #2, we're relying on
current::journal_info to avoid such deadlock.
[FIX]
Call btrfs_record_root_in_trans() after we have initialized
current::journal_info.
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.4+
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -590,10 +590,19 @@ again:
}
got_it:
- btrfs_record_root_in_trans(h, root);
-
if (!current->journal_info)
current->journal_info = h;
+
+ /*
+ * btrfs_record_root_in_trans() needs to alloc new extents, and may
+ * call btrfs_join_transaction() while we're also starting a
+ * transaction.
+ *
+ * Thus it need to be called after current->journal_info initialized,
+ * or we can deadlock.
+ */
+ btrfs_record_root_in_trans(h, root);
+
return h;
join_fail:
