lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 5.15 008/262] btrfs: get rid of warning on transaction commit when using flushoncommit
Date
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>

[ Upstream commit a0f0cf8341e34e5d2265bfd3a7ad68342da1e2aa ]

When using the flushoncommit mount option, during almost every transaction
commit we trigger a warning from __writeback_inodes_sb_nr():

$ cat fs/fs-writeback.c:
(...)
static void __writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *sb, ...
{
(...)
WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
(...)
}
(...)

The trace produced in dmesg looks like the following:

[947.473890] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 930 at fs/fs-writeback.c:2610 __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
[947.481623] Modules linked in: nfsd nls_cp437 cifs asn1_decoder cifs_arc4 fscache cifs_md4 ipmi_ssif
[947.489571] CPU: 5 PID: 930 Comm: btrfs-transacti Not tainted 95.16.3-srb-asrock-00001-g36437ad63879 #186
[947.497969] RIP: 0010:__writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
[947.502097] Code: 24 10 4c 89 44 24 18 c6 (...)
[947.519760] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000777e10 EFLAGS: 00010246
[947.523818] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000963300 RCX: 0000000000000000
[947.529765] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000fa51 RDI: ffffc90000777e50
[947.535740] RBP: ffff888101628a90 R08: ffff888100955800 R09: ffff888100956000
[947.541701] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888100963488
[947.547645] R13: ffff888100963000 R14: ffff888112fb7200 R15: ffff888100963460
[947.553621] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88841fd40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[947.560537] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[947.565122] CR2: 0000000008be50c4 CR3: 000000000220c000 CR4: 00000000001006e0
[947.571072] Call Trace:
[947.572354] <TASK>
[947.573266] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x1f1/0x998
[947.576785] ? start_transaction+0x3ab/0x44e
[947.579867] ? schedule_timeout+0x8a/0xdd
[947.582716] transaction_kthread+0xe9/0x156
[947.585721] ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction.isra.0+0x407/0x407
[947.590104] kthread+0x131/0x139
[947.592168] ? set_kthread_struct+0x32/0x32
[947.595174] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[947.597561] </TASK>
[947.598553] ---[ end trace 644721052755541c ]---

This is because we started using writeback_inodes_sb() to flush delalloc
when committing a transaction (when using -o flushoncommit), in order to
avoid deadlocks with filesystem freeze operations. This change was made
by commit ce8ea7cc6eb313 ("btrfs: don't call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots
in flushoncommit"). After that change we started producing that warning,
and every now and then a user reports this since the warning happens too
often, it spams dmesg/syslog, and a user is unsure if this reflects any
problem that might compromise the filesystem's reliability.

We can not just lock the sb->s_umount semaphore before calling
writeback_inodes_sb(), because that would at least deadlock with
filesystem freezing, since at fs/super.c:freeze_super() sync_filesystem()
is called while we are holding that semaphore in write mode, and that can
trigger a transaction commit, resulting in a deadlock. It would also
trigger the same type of deadlock in the unmount path. Possibly, it could
also introduce some other locking dependencies that lockdep would report.

To fix this call try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() instead of
writeback_inodes_sb(), because that will try to read lock sb->s_umount
and then will only call writeback_inodes_sb() if it was able to lock it.
This is fine because the cases where it can't read lock sb->s_umount
are during a filesystem unmount or during a filesystem freeze - in those
cases sb->s_umount is write locked and sync_filesystem() is called, which
calls writeback_inodes_sb(). In other words, in all cases where we can't
take a read lock on sb->s_umount, writeback is already being triggered
elsewhere.

An alternative would be to call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() with a
number of pages different from LONG_MAX, for example matching the number
of delalloc bytes we currently have, in which case we would end up
starting all delalloc with filemap_fdatawrite_wbc() and not with an
async flush via filemap_flush() - that is only possible after the rather
recent commit e076ab2a2ca70a ("btrfs: shrink delalloc pages instead of
full inodes"). However that creates a whole new can of worms due to new
lock dependencies, which lockdep complains, like for example:

[ 8948.247280] ======================================================
[ 8948.247823] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 8948.248353] 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1 Not tainted
[ 8948.248786] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 8948.249320] kworker/u16:18/933570 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 8948.249812] ffff9b3de1591690 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.250638]
but task is already holding lock:
[ 8948.251140] ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.252018]
which lock already depends on the new lock.

[ 8948.252710]
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 8948.253343]
-> #2 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 8948.253950] __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
[ 8948.254354] start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.254859] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.255408] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
[ 8948.255942] btrfs_mksubvol+0x380/0x570 [btrfs]
[ 8948.256406] btrfs_mksnapshot+0x81/0xb0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.256870] __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x17f/0x190 [btrfs]
[ 8948.257413] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xbb/0x140 [btrfs]
[ 8948.257961] btrfs_ioctl+0x1196/0x3630 [btrfs]
[ 8948.258418] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
[ 8948.258793] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 8948.259146] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 8948.259709]
-> #1 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 8948.260330] __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
[ 8948.260692] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.261234] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
[ 8948.261766] btrfs_set_free_space_cache_v1_active+0x38/0x60 [btrfs]
[ 8948.262379] btrfs_start_pre_rw_mount+0x119/0x180 [btrfs]
[ 8948.262909] open_ctree+0x1511/0x171e [btrfs]
[ 8948.263359] btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x12/0xde [btrfs]
[ 8948.263863] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
[ 8948.264242] vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
[ 8948.264594] vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0xb0
[ 8948.265017] btrfs_mount+0x11d/0x3a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.265462] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
[ 8948.265851] vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
[ 8948.266203] path_mount+0x2d4/0xbe0
[ 8948.266554] __x64_sys_mount+0x103/0x140
[ 8948.266940] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 8948.267300] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 8948.267790]
-> #0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}:
[ 8948.268322] __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
[ 8948.268733] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
[ 8948.269092] start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.269591] find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.270087] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
[ 8948.270588] cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
[ 8948.271051] btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.271586] writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
[ 8948.272071] __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.272579] extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
[ 8948.273113] extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
[ 8948.273573] do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
[ 8948.273942] filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
[ 8948.274371] start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.274876] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.275417] flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
[ 8948.275863] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.276438] process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
[ 8948.276829] worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
[ 8948.277189] kthread+0xf2/0x120
[ 8948.277506] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[ 8948.277868]
other info that might help us debug this:

[ 8948.278548] Chain exists of:
sb_internal#2 --> &fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex --> &root->delalloc_mutex

[ 8948.279601] Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[ 8948.280102] CPU0 CPU1
[ 8948.280508] ---- ----
[ 8948.280915] lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
[ 8948.281271] lock(&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex);
[ 8948.281915] lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
[ 8948.282487] lock(sb_internal#2);
[ 8948.282800]
*** DEADLOCK ***

[ 8948.283333] 4 locks held by kworker/u16:18/933570:
[ 8948.283750] #0: ffff9b3dc00a9d48 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
[ 8948.284609] #1: ffffa90349dafe70 ((work_completion)(&fs_info->async_data_reclaim_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
[ 8948.285637] #2: ffff9b3e14db5040 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.286674] #3: ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.287596]
stack backtrace:
[ 8948.287975] CPU: 3 PID: 933570 Comm: kworker/u16:18 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1
[ 8948.288677] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[ 8948.289649] Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs]
[ 8948.290298] Call Trace:
[ 8948.290517] <TASK>
[ 8948.290700] dump_stack_lvl+0x59/0x73
[ 8948.291026] check_noncircular+0xf3/0x110
[ 8948.291375] ? start_transaction+0x228/0x6e0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.291826] __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
[ 8948.292241] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
[ 8948.292714] ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.293241] ? lock_is_held_type+0xea/0x140
[ 8948.293601] start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.294055] ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.294518] find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.294957] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x40
[ 8948.295312] ? btrfs_get_alloc_profile+0x124/0x290 [btrfs]
[ 8948.295813] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
[ 8948.296270] cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
[ 8948.296691] btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.297175] ? find_lock_delalloc_range+0x247/0x270 [btrfs]
[ 8948.297678] writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
[ 8948.298123] __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.298570] extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
[ 8948.299061] extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
[ 8948.299495] do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
[ 8948.299817] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xd/0x110
[ 8948.300160] ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
[ 8948.300494] filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
[ 8948.300874] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4b/0xa0
[ 8948.301243] start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.301706] ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
[ 8948.302055] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.302564] flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
[ 8948.302970] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.303510] process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
[ 8948.303860] ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
[ 8948.304221] worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
[ 8948.304543] ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
[ 8948.304904] kthread+0xf2/0x120
[ 8948.305184] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
[ 8948.305598] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[ 8948.305921] </TASK>

It all comes from the fact that btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() takes the
delalloc_root_mutex, in the transaction commit path we are holding a
read lock on one of the superblock's freeze semaphores (via
sb_start_intwrite()), the async reclaim task can also do a call to
btrfs_start_delalloc_roots(), which ends up triggering writeback with
calls to filemap_fdatawrite_wbc(), resulting in extent allocation which
in turn can call btrfs_start_transaction(), which will result in taking
the freeze semaphore via sb_start_intwrite(), forming a nasty dependency
on all those locks which can be taken in different orders by different
code paths.

So just adopt the simple approach of calling try_to_writeback_inodes_sb()
at btrfs_start_delalloc_flush().

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20220130005258.GA7465@cuci.nl/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/43acc426-d683-d1b6-729d-c6bc4a2fff4d@gmail.com/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/6833930a-08d7-6fbc-0141-eb9cdfd6bb4d@gmail.com/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20190322041731.GF16651@hungrycats.org/
Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
[ add more link reports ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index f1ae5a5b79c68..e3e9c58ea66fa 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -2014,16 +2014,24 @@ static void btrfs_cleanup_pending_block_groups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
static inline int btrfs_start_delalloc_flush(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
{
/*
- * We use writeback_inodes_sb here because if we used
+ * We use try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() here because if we used
* btrfs_start_delalloc_roots we would deadlock with fs freeze.
* Currently are holding the fs freeze lock, if we do an async flush
* we'll do btrfs_join_transaction() and deadlock because we need to
* wait for the fs freeze lock. Using the direct flushing we benefit
* from already being in a transaction and our join_transaction doesn't
* have to re-take the fs freeze lock.
+ *
+ * Note that try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() will only trigger writeback
+ * if it can read lock sb->s_umount. It will always be able to lock it,
+ * except when the filesystem is being unmounted or being frozen, but in
+ * those cases sync_filesystem() is called, which results in calling
+ * writeback_inodes_sb() while holding a write lock on sb->s_umount.
+ * Note that we don't call writeback_inodes_sb() directly, because it
+ * will emit a warning if sb->s_umount is not locked.
*/
if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, FLUSHONCOMMIT))
- writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
+ try_to_writeback_inodes_sb(fs_info->sb, WB_REASON_SYNC);
return 0;
}

--
2.34.1


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-07 10:52    [W:0.914 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site