From 61a66469a4bf63a1357b6af36242682ae339ca2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2022 21:17:43 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] bcachefs: Fix lock ordering under traverse_all()
traverse_all() traverses btree paths in sorted order, so it should never
see transaction restarts due to lock ordering violations. But some code
in __bch2_btree_path_upgrade(), while necessary when not running under
traverse_all(), was causing some confusing lock ordering violations -
disabling this code under traverse_all() will let us put in some more
assertions.
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
---
fs/bcachefs/btree_iter.c | 17 +++++++++--------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/btree_iter.c b/fs/bcachefs/btree_iter.c
index 90f5d306566b0..1cfd2e9015b10 100644
--- a/fs/bcachefs/btree_iter.c
+++ b/fs/bcachefs/btree_iter.c
@@ -473,14 +473,15 @@ bool __bch2_btree_path_upgrade(struct btree_trans *trans,
* before interior nodes - now that's handled by
* bch2_btree_path_traverse_all().
*/
- trans_for_each_path(trans, linked)
- if (linked != path &&
- linked->cached == path->cached &&
- linked->btree_id == path->btree_id &&
- linked->locks_want < new_locks_want) {
- linked->locks_want = new_locks_want;
- btree_path_get_locks(trans, linked, true);
- }
+ if (!path->cached && !trans->in_traverse_all)
+ trans_for_each_path(trans, linked)
+ if (linked != path &&
+ linked->cached == path->cached &&
+ linked->btree_id == path->btree_id &&
+ linked->locks_want < new_locks_want) {
+ linked->locks_want = new_locks_want;
+ btree_path_get_locks(trans, linked, true);
+ }
return false;
}
--
2.30.2