Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/btrfs/transaction.c
between commit:
fcc99734d1d4 ("btrfs: transaction: Avoid deadlock due to bad initialization timing of fs_info::journal_info")
from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:
f12ca53a6fd6 ("btrfs: force chunk allocation if our global rsv is larger than metadata")
from the btrfs tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index 2d5498136e5e,e4dbd8e3c641..000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@@ -666,15 -674,17 +672,26 @@@ got_it
current->journal_info = h;
/*
+ * btrfs_record_root_in_trans() needs to alloc new extents, and may
+ * call btrfs_join_transaction() while we're also starting a
+ * transaction.
+ *
+ * Thus it need to be called after current->journal_info initialized,
+ * or we can deadlock.
+ */
+ btrfs_record_root_in_trans(h, root);
+
+ * If the space_info is marked ALLOC_FORCE then we'll get upgraded to
+ * ALLOC_FORCE the first run through, and then we won't allocate for
+ * anybody else who races in later. We don't care about the return
+ * value here.
+ */
+ if (do_chunk_alloc && num_bytes) {
+ u64 flags = h->block_rsv->space_info->flags;
+ btrfs_chunk_alloc(h, btrfs_get_alloc_profile(fs_info, flags),
+ CHUNK_ALLOC_NO_FORCE);
+ }
+
return h;
join_fail:
Hi all,
On Fri, 1 May 2020 10:24:53 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>
> between commit:
>
> fcc99734d1d4 ("btrfs: transaction: Avoid deadlock due to bad initialization timing of fs_info::journal_info")
>
> from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:
>
> f12ca53a6fd6 ("btrfs: force chunk allocation if our global rsv is larger than metadata")
>
> from the btrfs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> index 2d5498136e5e,e4dbd8e3c641..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> @@@ -666,15 -674,17 +672,26 @@@ got_it
> current->journal_info = h;
>
> /*
> + * btrfs_record_root_in_trans() needs to alloc new extents, and may
> + * call btrfs_join_transaction() while we're also starting a
> + * transaction.
> + *
> + * Thus it need to be called after current->journal_info initialized,
> + * or we can deadlock.
> + */
> + btrfs_record_root_in_trans(h, root);
> +
> + * If the space_info is marked ALLOC_FORCE then we'll get upgraded to
> + * ALLOC_FORCE the first run through, and then we won't allocate for
> + * anybody else who races in later. We don't care about the return
> + * value here.
> + */
> + if (do_chunk_alloc && num_bytes) {
> + u64 flags = h->block_rsv->space_info->flags;
> + btrfs_chunk_alloc(h, btrfs_get_alloc_profile(fs_info, flags),
> + CHUNK_ALLOC_NO_FORCE);
> + }
> +
> return h;
>
> join_fail:
I fixed the missing comment start in my resolution ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On 2020/5/1 上午9:05, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, 1 May 2020 10:24:53 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> fcc99734d1d4 ("btrfs: transaction: Avoid deadlock due to bad initialization timing of fs_info::journal_info")
>>
>> from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:
>>
>> f12ca53a6fd6 ("btrfs: force chunk allocation if our global rsv is larger than metadata")
>>
>> from the btrfs tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> complex conflicts.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>>
>> diff --cc fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> index 2d5498136e5e,e4dbd8e3c641..000000000000
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> @@@ -666,15 -674,17 +672,26 @@@ got_it
>> current->journal_info = h;
>>
>> /*
>> + * btrfs_record_root_in_trans() needs to alloc new extents, and may
>> + * call btrfs_join_transaction() while we're also starting a
>> + * transaction.
>> + *
>> + * Thus it need to be called after current->journal_info initialized,
>> + * or we can deadlock.
>> + */
>> + btrfs_record_root_in_trans(h, root);
>> +
>> + * If the space_info is marked ALLOC_FORCE then we'll get upgraded to
>> + * ALLOC_FORCE the first run through, and then we won't allocate for
>> + * anybody else who races in later. We don't care about the return
>> + * value here.
>> + */
>> + if (do_chunk_alloc && num_bytes) {
>> + u64 flags = h->block_rsv->space_info->flags;
>> + btrfs_chunk_alloc(h, btrfs_get_alloc_profile(fs_info, flags),
>> + CHUNK_ALLOC_NO_FORCE);
>> + }
>> +
>> return h;
The proper fix has landed in David's misc-next branch, which puts
btrfs_record_root_in_trans(); after the if () {} code block.
By that, btrfs_record_root_in_trans() has lesser chance to hit ENOSPC.
Thanks,
Qu
>>
>> join_fail:
>
>
> I fixed the missing comment start in my resolution ...
>