btrfs: fix lockdep warning with reclaim lock inversion

btrfs: fix lockdep warning with reclaim lock inversion

commit ed55b6ac077fe7f9c6490ff55172c4b563562d7c upstream.

When encountering memory pressure, testers have run into the following
lockdep warning. It was caused by __link_block_group calling kobject_add
with the groups_sem held. kobject_add calls kvasprintf with GFP_KERNEL,
which gets us into reclaim context. The kobject doesn't actually need
to be added under the lock -- it just needs to ensure that it's only
added for the first block group to be linked.

=========================================================
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
3.14.0-rc8-default #1 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/169 just changed the state of lock:
 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffffa018baea>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x3a/0x200 [btrfs]
but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
 (&found->groups_sem){+++++.}

and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&found->groups_sem);
                               local_irq_disable();
                               lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
                               lock(&found->groups_sem);
  <Interrupt>
    lock(&delayed_node->mutex);

 *** DEADLOCK ***
2 locks held by kswapd0/169:
 #0:  (shrinker_rwsem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff81159e8a>] shrink_slab+0x3a/0x160
 #1:  (&type->s_umount_key#27){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff811bac6f>] grab_super_passive+0x3f/0x90

Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>