Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace

Xfstests btrfs/011 complains about a deadlock warning,

[ 1226.649039] =========================================================
[ 1226.649039] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 1226.649039] 4.1.0+ #270 Not tainted
[ 1226.649039] ---------------------------------------------------------
[ 1226.652955] kswapd0/46 just changed the state of lock:
[ 1226.652955]  (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955] but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 1226.652955]  (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock){+.+.+.}

and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.

[ 1226.652955]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1226.652955] Chain exists of:
  &delayed_node->mutex --> &found->groups_sem --> &fs_info->dev_replace.lock

[ 1226.652955]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:

[ 1226.652955]        CPU0                    CPU1
[ 1226.652955]        ----                    ----
[ 1226.652955]   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
[ 1226.652955]                                local_irq_disable();
[ 1226.652955]                                lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]                                lock(&found->groups_sem);
[ 1226.652955]   <Interrupt>
[ 1226.652955]     lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
[ 1226.652955]
 *** DEADLOCK ***

Commit 084b6e7c7607 ("btrfs: Fix a lockdep warning when running xfstest.") tried
to fix a similar one that has the exactly same warning, but with that, we still
run to this.

The above lock chain comes from
btrfs_commit_transaction
  ->btrfs_run_delayed_items
    ...
    ->__btrfs_update_delayed_inode
      ...
      ->__btrfs_cow_block
         ...
         ->find_free_extent
            ->cache_block_group
              ->load_free_space_cache
                ->btrfs_readpages
                  ->submit_one_bio
                    ...
                    ->__btrfs_map_block
                      ->btrfs_dev_replace_lock

However, with high memory pressure, tasks which hold dev_replace.lock can
be interrupted by kswapd and then kswapd is intended to release memory occupied
by superblock, inodes and dentries, where we may call evict_inode, and it comes
to

[ 1226.652955]  [<ffffffff81458735>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x45/0x1d0
[ 1226.652955]  [<ffffffff81459e74>] btrfs_remove_delayed_node+0x24/0x30
[ 1226.652955]  [<ffffffff8140c5fe>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x34e/0x700

delayed_node->mutex may be acquired in __btrfs_release_delayed_node(), and it leads
to a ABBA deadlock.

To fix this, we can use "blocking rwlock" used in the case of extent_buffer, but
things are simpler here since we only needs read's spinlock to blocking lock.

With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.

Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 366b335946fa..858a2e489977 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -1714,12 +1714,12 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_root *root, char *device_path)
 	} while (read_seqretry(&root->fs_info->profiles_lock, seq));
 
 	num_devices = root->fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices;
-	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(&root->fs_info->dev_replace);
+	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(&root->fs_info->dev_replace, 0);
 	if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&root->fs_info->dev_replace)) {
 		WARN_ON(num_devices < 1);
 		num_devices--;
 	}
-	btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(&root->fs_info->dev_replace);
+	btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(&root->fs_info->dev_replace, 0);
 
 	if ((all_avail & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10) && num_devices <= 4) {
 		ret = BTRFS_ERROR_DEV_RAID10_MIN_NOT_MET;
@@ -3686,12 +3686,12 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl,
 	}
 
 	num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices;
-	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
+	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace, 0);
 	if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace)) {
 		BUG_ON(num_devices < 1);
 		num_devices--;
 	}
-	btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
+	btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace, 0);
 	allowed = BTRFS_AVAIL_ALLOC_BIT_SINGLE;
 	if (num_devices == 1)
 		allowed |= BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP;
@@ -5062,10 +5062,10 @@ int btrfs_num_copies(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 logical, u64 len)
 		ret = 1;
 	free_extent_map(em);
 
-	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
+	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace, 0);
 	if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace))
 		ret++;
-	btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
+	btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(&fs_info->dev_replace, 0);
 
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -5325,10 +5325,12 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, int rw,
 	if (!bbio_ret)
 		goto out;
 
-	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(dev_replace);
+	btrfs_dev_replace_lock(dev_replace, 0);
 	dev_replace_is_ongoing = btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(dev_replace);
 	if (!dev_replace_is_ongoing)
-		btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(dev_replace);
+		btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(dev_replace, 0);
+	else
+		btrfs_dev_replace_set_lock_blocking(dev_replace);
 
 	if (dev_replace_is_ongoing && mirror_num == map->num_stripes + 1 &&
 	    !(rw & (REQ_WRITE | REQ_DISCARD | REQ_GET_READ_MIRRORS)) &&
@@ -5751,8 +5753,10 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, int rw,
 		bbio->mirror_num = map->num_stripes + 1;
 	}
 out:
-	if (dev_replace_is_ongoing)
-		btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(dev_replace);
+	if (dev_replace_is_ongoing) {
+		btrfs_dev_replace_clear_lock_blocking(dev_replace);
+		btrfs_dev_replace_unlock(dev_replace, 0);
+	}
 	free_extent_map(em);
 	return ret;
 }