This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
btrfs: fix lockdep warning with reclaim lock inversion
to the 3.14-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
btrfs-fix-lockdep-warning-with-reclaim-lock-inversion.patch
and it can be found in the queue-3.14 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From ed55b6ac077fe7f9c6490ff55172c4b563562d7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:11:26 -0400
Subject: btrfs: fix lockdep warning with reclaim lock inversion
From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
commit ed55b6ac077fe7f9c6490ff55172c4b563562d7c upstream.
When encountering memory pressure, testers have run into the following
lockdep warning. It was caused by __link_block_group calling kobject_add
with the groups_sem held. kobject_add calls kvasprintf with GFP_KERNEL,
which gets us into reclaim context. The kobject doesn't actually need
to be added under the lock -- it just needs to ensure that it's only
added for the first block group to be linked.
=========================================================
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
3.14.0-rc8-default #1 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/169 just changed the state of lock:
(&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffffa018baea>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x3a/0x200 [btrfs]
but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
(&found->groups_sem){+++++.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&found->groups_sem);
local_irq_disable();
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
lock(&found->groups_sem);
<Interrupt>
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
2 locks held by kswapd0/169:
#0: (shrinker_rwsem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff81159e8a>] shrink_slab+0x3a/0x160
#1: (&type->s_umount_key#27){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff811bac6f>] grab_super_passive+0x3f/0x90
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -8344,9 +8344,15 @@ static void __link_block_group(struct bt
struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache)
{
int index = get_block_group_index(cache);
+ bool first = false;
down_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
- if (list_empty(&space_info->block_groups[index])) {
+ if (list_empty(&space_info->block_groups[index]))
+ first = true;
+ list_add_tail(&cache->list, &space_info->block_groups[index]);
+ up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
+
+ if (first) {
struct kobject *kobj = &space_info->block_group_kobjs[index];
int ret;
@@ -8358,8 +8364,6 @@ static void __link_block_group(struct bt
kobject_put(&space_info->kobj);
}
}
- list_add_tail(&cache->list, &space_info->block_groups[index]);
- up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
}
static struct btrfs_block_group_cache *
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from jeffm@xxxxxxxx are
queue-3.14/btrfs-allocate-raid-type-kobjects-dynamically.patch
queue-3.14/btrfs-fix-lockdep-warning-with-reclaim-lock-inversion.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html