Re: btrfs lockdep issue

Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Am 13.07.26 um 14:07 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
[...]

>   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>         CPU0                    CPU1
>         ----                    ----
>    lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
>                                 lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>                                 lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
>    rlock(&type->i_mutex_dir_key#2);
>   *** DEADLOCK ***
> 2 locks held by (udev-worker)/1653:
>   #0: 0000016c727051c8 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_control_ioctl+0x102/0x1e0
>   #1: 00000069238564d8 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: device_list_add.constprop.0+0x148/0xc60    

So some additional detauls
-------
            
this was a udev-triggered btrfs device scan (BTRFS_IOC_SCAN_DEV) of
/dev/dm-8. The scanned device belongs to the mounted btrfs root filesystem
(multipath, the path flapped between /dev/mapper/mpathg2 and /dev/dm-8),

---snip---
BTRFS info: devid 1 device path /dev/mapper/mpathg2 changed to /dev/dm-8 scanned by (udev-worker) (1653)
---snip---
            
Could this be due to  commit 2e8b6bc0ab41ce41e6dfcc204b6cc01d5abbc952
("btrfs: avoid unnecessary device path update for the same device")
?
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.