kernel/linux.git/fs/btrfs/locking.c, branch v6.6.132

btrfs: add raid stripe tree definitions

2026-03-25T10:05:30+00:00

[ Upstream commit ee1293308e01d359688243d665138f35a6f1f9b8 ] Add definitions for the raid stripe tree. This tree will hold information about the on-disk layout of the stripes in a RAID set. Each stripe extent has a 1:1 relationship with an on-disk extent item and is doing the logical to per-drive physical address translation for the extent item in question. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba Stable-dep-of: 511dc8912ae3 ("btrfs: fix incorrect key offset in error message in check_dev_extent_item()") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

btrfs: add block-group tree to lockdep classes

2023-06-19T11:59:35+00:00

The block group tree was not present among the lockdep classes. We could get potentially lockdep warnings but so far none has been seen, also because block-group-tree is a relatively new feature. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.1+ Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: locking: use atomic for DREW lock writers

2023-04-17T16:01:17+00:00

The DREW lock uses percpu variable to track lock counters and for that it needs to allocate the structure. In btrfs_read_tree_root() or btrfs_init_fs_root() this may add another error case or requires the NOFS scope protection. One way is to preallocate the structure as was suggested in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20221214021125.28289-1-robbieko@synology.com/ We may avoid the allocation altogether if we don't use the percpu variables but an atomic for the writer counter. This should not make any difference, the DREW lock is used for truncate and NOCOW writes along with other IO operations. The percpu counter for writers has been there since the original commit 8257b2dc3c1a1057 "Btrfs: introduce btrfs_{start, end}_nocow_write() for each subvolume". The reason could be to avoid hammering the same cacheline from all the readers but then the writers do that anyway. Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: move accessor helpers into accessors.h

2022-12-05T17:00:42+00:00

This is a large patch, but because they're all macros it's impossible to split up. Simply copy all of the item accessors in ctree.h and paste them in accessors.h, and then update any files to include the header so everything compiles. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba [ reformat comments, style fixups ] Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: implement a nowait option for tree searches

2022-09-26T10:46:42+00:00

For NOWAIT IOCBs we'll need a way to tell search to not wait on locks or anything. Accomplish this by adding a path->nowait flag that will use trylocks and skip reading of metadata, returning -EAGAIN in either of these cases. For now we only need this for reads, so only the read side is handled. Add an ASSERT() to catch anybody trying to use this for writes so they know they'll have to implement the write side. Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Signed-off-by: Stefan Roesch Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: fix lockdep splat with reloc root extent buffers

2022-08-17T14:19:12+00:00

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock: ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 but task is already holding lock: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0 __btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600 btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230 btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70 btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0 __btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280 btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290 btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0 process_one_work+0x271/0x590 worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0 kthread+0xf0/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70 do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0 relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0 relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd -> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1 Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-tree-01); lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 7 locks held by btrfs/752500: #0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90 #1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40 #2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400 #3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610 #4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 #5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 #6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73 check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 ? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50 ? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key. However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of reloc tree -> normal tree for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks. However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of normal tree -> reloc tree which is why lockdep complains. Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root. Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged. This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we maintain the lock order of normal tree -> reloc tree We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting the key for the block we're linking into the fs root. With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: move lockdep class helpers to locking.c

2022-08-17T14:19:10+00:00

These definitions exist in disk-io.c, which is not related to the locking. Move this over to locking.h/c where it makes more sense. Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: don't set lock_owner when locking extent buffer for reading

2022-06-21T12:46:56+00:00

In 196d59ab9ccc "btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore" the functions for tree read locking were rewritten, and in the process the read lock functions started setting eb->lock_owner = current->pid. Previously lock_owner was only set in tree write lock functions. Read locks are shared, so they don't have exclusive ownership of the underlying object, so setting lock_owner to any single value for a read lock makes no sense. It's mostly harmless because write locks and read locks are mutually exclusive, and none of the existing code in btrfs (btrfs_init_new_buffer and print_eb_refs_lock) cares what nonsense is written in lock_owner when no writer is holding the lock. KCSAN does care, and will complain about the data race incessantly. Remove the assignments in the read lock functions because they're useless noise. Fixes: 196d59ab9ccc ("btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore") CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana Signed-off-by: Zygo Blaxell Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: fix typos in comments

2021-06-22T12:11:57+00:00

Fix typos that have snuck in since the last round. Found by codespell. Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: remove the recurse parameter from __btrfs_tree_read_lock

2020-12-08T14:54:09+00:00

It is completely unused now, remove it. Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba