Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754304AbaLEXjU (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 18:39:20 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:53858 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752380AbaLEWqJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:46:09 -0500 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , Patrick Schmid Subject: [PATCH 3.17 068/122] btrfs: fix lockups from btrfs_clear_path_blocking Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 14:44:02 -0800 Message-Id: <20141205223315.951579838@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.1.3 In-Reply-To: <20141205223305.514276242@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20141205223305.514276242@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.63-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 3.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Chris Mason commit f82c458a2c3ffb94b431fc6ad791a79df1b3713e upstream. The fair reader/writer locks mean that btrfs_clear_path_blocking needs to strictly follow lock ordering rules even when we already have blocking locks on a given path. Before we can clear a blocking lock on the path, we need to make sure all of the locks have been converted to blocking. This will remove lock inversions against anyone spinning in write_lock() against the buffers we're trying to get read locks on. These inversions didn't exist before the fair read/writer locks, but now we need to be more careful. We papered over this deadlock in the past by changing btrfs_try_read_lock() to be a true trylock against both the spinlock and the blocking lock. This was slower, and not sufficient to fix all the deadlocks. This patch adds a btrfs_tree_read_lock_atomic(), which basically means get the spinlock but trylock on the blocking lock. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reported-by: Patrick Schmid Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 14 ++------------ fs/btrfs/locking.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++--- fs/btrfs/locking.h | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c @@ -80,13 +80,6 @@ noinline void btrfs_clear_path_blocking( { int i; -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC - /* lockdep really cares that we take all of these spinlocks - * in the right order. If any of the locks in the path are not - * currently blocking, it is going to complain. So, make really - * really sure by forcing the path to blocking before we clear - * the path blocking. - */ if (held) { btrfs_set_lock_blocking_rw(held, held_rw); if (held_rw == BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK) @@ -95,7 +88,6 @@ noinline void btrfs_clear_path_blocking( held_rw = BTRFS_READ_LOCK_BLOCKING; } btrfs_set_path_blocking(p); -#endif for (i = BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL - 1; i >= 0; i--) { if (p->nodes[i] && p->locks[i]) { @@ -107,10 +99,8 @@ noinline void btrfs_clear_path_blocking( } } -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC if (held) btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw(held, held_rw); -#endif } /* this also releases the path */ @@ -2902,7 +2892,7 @@ cow_done: } p->locks[level] = BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK; } else { - err = btrfs_try_tree_read_lock(b); + err = btrfs_tree_read_lock_atomic(b); if (!err) { btrfs_set_path_blocking(p); btrfs_tree_read_lock(b); @@ -3034,7 +3024,7 @@ again: } level = btrfs_header_level(b); - err = btrfs_try_tree_read_lock(b); + err = btrfs_tree_read_lock_atomic(b); if (!err) { btrfs_set_path_blocking(p); btrfs_tree_read_lock(b); --- a/fs/btrfs/locking.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.c @@ -128,6 +128,26 @@ again: } /* + * take a spinning read lock. + * returns 1 if we get the read lock and 0 if we don't + * this won't wait for blocking writers + */ +int btrfs_tree_read_lock_atomic(struct extent_buffer *eb) +{ + if (atomic_read(&eb->blocking_writers)) + return 0; + + read_lock(&eb->lock); + if (atomic_read(&eb->blocking_writers)) { + read_unlock(&eb->lock); + return 0; + } + atomic_inc(&eb->read_locks); + atomic_inc(&eb->spinning_readers); + return 1; +} + +/* * returns 1 if we get the read lock and 0 if we don't * this won't wait for blocking writers */ @@ -158,9 +178,7 @@ int btrfs_try_tree_write_lock(struct ext atomic_read(&eb->blocking_readers)) return 0; - if (!write_trylock(&eb->lock)) - return 0; - + write_lock(&eb->lock); if (atomic_read(&eb->blocking_writers) || atomic_read(&eb->blocking_readers)) { write_unlock(&eb->lock); --- a/fs/btrfs/locking.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.h @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ void btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw(struct void btrfs_assert_tree_locked(struct extent_buffer *eb); int btrfs_try_tree_read_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb); int btrfs_try_tree_write_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb); +int btrfs_tree_read_lock_atomic(struct extent_buffer *eb); + static inline void btrfs_tree_unlock_rw(struct extent_buffer *eb, int rw) { -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/