kernel/linux.git/fs/btrfs/locking.h, branch linux-6.0.y

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: assert that extent buffers are write locked instead of only locked

2021-10-26T17:08:02+00:00

We currently use lockdep_assert_held() at btrfs_assert_tree_locked(), and that checks that we hold a lock either in read mode or write mode. However in all contexts we use btrfs_assert_tree_locked(), we actually want to check if we are holding a write lock on the extent buffer's rw semaphore - it would be a bug if in any of those contexts we were holding a read lock instead. So change btrfs_assert_tree_locked() to use lockdep_assert_held_write() instead and, to make it more explicit, rename btrfs_assert_tree_locked() to btrfs_assert_tree_write_locked(), so that it's clear we want to check we are holding a write lock. For now there are no contexts where we want to assert that we must have a read lock, but in case that is needed in the future, we can add a new helper function that just calls out lockdep_assert_held_read(). Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana Reviewed-by: David Sterba 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

btrfs: merge back btrfs_read_lock_root_node helpers

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

We no longer have recursive locking and there's no need for separate helpers that allowed the transition to rwsem with minimal code changes. Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: locking: remove all the blocking helpers

2020-12-08T14:54:01+00:00

Now that we're using a rw_semaphore we no longer need to indicate if a lock is blocking or not, nor do we need to flip the entire path from blocking to spinning. Remove these helpers and all the places they are called. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore

2020-12-08T14:53:43+00:00

Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of magnitude slower than our home grown locking. However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also have adaptive spinning that works relatively well. The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep. So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload, because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the following results (with all debug options off): dbench 200 baseline Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms dbench 200 with patch Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough tasks to really stress the locking fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16 baseline Average Files/sec: 160166.7 p50 Files/sec: 165832 p90 Files/sec: 123886 p99 Files/sec: 123495 real 3m26.527s user 2m19.223s sys 48m21.856s patched Average Files/sec: 164135.7 p50 Files/sec: 171095 p90 Files/sec: 122889 p99 Files/sec: 113819 real 3m29.660s user 2m19.990s sys 44m12.259s Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_NEW_ROOT for adding new roots

2020-10-07T10:12:17+00:00

The way we add new roots is confusing from a locking perspective for lockdep. We generally have the rule that we lock things in order from highest level to lowest, but in the case of adding a new level to the tree we actually allocate a new block for the root, which makes the locking go in reverse. A similar issue exists for snapshotting, we cow the original root for the root of a new tree, however they're at the same level. Address this by using BTRFS_NESTING_NEW_ROOT for these operations. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT for split blocks

2020-10-07T10:12:16+00:00

If we are splitting a leaf/node, we could do something like the following lock(leaf) BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL lock(left) BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT + BTRFS_NESTING_COW push from leaf -> left reset path to point to left split left allocate new block, lock block BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT at the new block point we need to have a different nesting level, because we have already used either BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT or BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT when pushing items from the original leaf into the adjacent leaves. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT/RIGHT_COW

2020-10-07T10:12:16+00:00

For similar reasons as BTRFS_NESTING_COW, we need BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT/RIGHT_COW. The pattern is this lock leaf -> BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL cow leaf -> BTRFS_NESTING_COW split leaf lock left -> BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT cow left -> BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT_COW We need this in order to indicate to lockdep that these locks are discrete and are being taken in a safe order. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba