btrfs: fix lockdep warning with reclaim lock inversion
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@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment