From 61a66469a4bf63a1357b6af36242682ae339ca2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kent Overstreet 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 --- 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 90f5d306566b..1cfd2e9015b1 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; } -- 2.20.1