Skip to content
GitLab
  1. Feb 26, 2016
  3. Feb 23, 2016
    • Liu Bo's avatar
      Btrfs: fix lockdep deadlock warning due to dev_replace · 73beece9
      Liu Bo authored 
      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 084b6e7c

 ("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: default avatarLiu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      73beece9
    • Arnd Bergmann's avatar
      btrfs: avoid uninitialized variable warning · f827ba9a
      Arnd Bergmann authored 
      

With CONFIG_SMP and CONFIG_PREEMPT both disabled, gcc decides
to partially inline the get_state_failrec() function but cannot
figure out that means the failrec pointer is always valid
if the function returns success, which causes a harmless
warning:

fs/btrfs/extent_io.c: In function 'clean_io_failure':
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2131:4: error: 'failrec' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]

This marks get_state_failrec() and set_state_failrec() both
as 'noinline', which avoids the warning in all cases for me,
and seems less ugly than adding a fake initialization.

Signed-off-by: default avatarArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Fixes: 47dc196a

 ("btrfs: use proper type for failrec in extent_state")
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      f827ba9a
  5. Feb 18, 2016
  7. Feb 16, 2016
    • Zhao Lei's avatar
      btrfs: reada: Avoid many times of empty loop · 97d5f0e6
      Zhao Lei authored 
      

We can see following loop(10000 times) in trace_log:
 [   75.416137] ZL_DEBUG: reada_start_machine_dev:730: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re->ref_cnt ffff88003741e0c0 1 -> 2
 [   75.417413] ZL_DEBUG: reada_extent_put:524: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re = ffff88003741e0c0, refcnt = 2 -> 1
 [   75.418611] ZL_DEBUG: __readahead_hook:129: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re->ref_cnt ffff88003741e0c0 1 -> 2
 [   75.419793] ZL_DEBUG: reada_extent_put:524: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re = ffff88003741e0c0, refcnt = 2 -> 1

 [   75.421016] ZL_DEBUG: reada_start_machine_dev:730: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re->ref_cnt ffff88003741e0c0 1 -> 2
 [   75.422324] ZL_DEBUG: reada_extent_put:524: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re = ffff88003741e0c0, refcnt = 2 -> 1
 [   75.423661] ZL_DEBUG: __readahead_hook:129: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re->ref_cnt ffff88003741e0c0 1 -> 2
 [   75.424882] ZL_DEBUG: reada_extent_put:524: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re = ffff88003741e0c0, refcnt = 2 -> 1

 ...(10000 times)

 [  124.101672] ZL_DEBUG: reada_start_machine_dev:730: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re->ref_cnt ffff88003741e0c0 1 -> 2
 [  124.102850] ZL_DEBUG: reada_extent_put:524: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re = ffff88003741e0c0, refcnt = 2 -> 1
 [  124.104008] ZL_DEBUG: __readahead_hook:129: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re->ref_cnt ffff88003741e0c0 1 -> 2
 [  124.105121] ZL_DEBUG: reada_extent_put:524: pid=771 comm=kworker/u2:3 re = ffff88003741e0c0, refcnt = 2 -> 1

Reason:
 If more than one user trigger reada in same extent, the first task
 finished setting of reada data struct and call reada_start_machine()
 to start, and the second task only add a ref_count but have not
 add reada_extctl struct completely, the reada_extent can not finished
 all jobs, and will be selected in __reada_start_machine() for 10000
 times(total times in __reada_start_machine()).

Fix:
 For a reada_extent without job, we don't need to run it, just return
 0 to let caller break.

Signed-off-by: default avatarZhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      97d5f0e6
    • Zhao Lei's avatar
      btrfs: reada: Add missed segment checking in reada_find_zone · 8e9aa51f
      Zhao Lei authored 
      

In rechecking zone-in-tree, we still need to check zone include
our logical address.

Signed-off-by: default avatarZhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      8e9aa51f
    • Zhao Lei's avatar
      btrfs: reada: reduce additional fs_info->reada_lock in reada_find_zone · c37f49c7
      Zhao Lei authored 
      

We can avoid additional locking-acquirment and one pair of
kref_get/put by combine two condition.

Signed-off-by: default avatarZhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      c37f49c7
    • Zhao Lei's avatar
      btrfs: reada: Fix in-segment calculation for reada · 50378530
      Zhao Lei authored 
      

reada_zone->end is end pos of segment:
 end = start + cache->key.offset - 1;

So we need to use "<=" in condition to judge is a pos in the
segment.

The problem happened rearly, because logical pos rarely pointed
to last 4k of a blockgroup, but we need to fix it to make code
right in logic.

Signed-off-by: default avatarZhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      50378530
  9. Feb 15, 2016