A user reported a lockdep splat

 ======================================================
 WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
 5.2.11-gentoo #2 Not tainted
 ------------------------------------------------------
 kswapd0/711 is trying to acquire lock:
 000000007777a663 (sb_internal){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500

but task is already holding lock:
 000000000ba86300 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}:
 kmem_cache_alloc+0x1f/0x1c0
 btrfs_alloc_inode+0x1f/0x260
 alloc_inode+0x16/0xa0
 new_inode+0xe/0xb0
 btrfs_new_inode+0x70/0x610
 btrfs_symlink+0xd0/0x420
 vfs_symlink+0x9c/0x100
 do_symlinkat+0x66/0xe0
 do_syscall_64+0x55/0x1c0
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe

-> #0 (sb_internal){.+.+}:
 __sb_start_write+0xf6/0x150
 start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
 btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x59/0x110
 btrfs_evict_inode+0x19e/0x4c0
 evict+0xbc/0x1f0
 inode_lru_isolate+0x113/0x190
 __list_lru_walk_one.isra.4+0x5c/0x100
 list_lru_walk_one+0x32/0x50
 prune_icache_sb+0x36/0x80
 super_cache_scan+0x14a/0x1d0
 do_shrink_slab+0x131/0x320
 shrink_node+0xf7/0x380
 balance_pgdat+0x2d5/0x640
 kswapd+0x2ba/0x5e0
 kthread+0x147/0x160
 ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30

other info that might help us debug this:

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

 CPU0 CPU1
 ---- ----
 lock(fs_reclaim);
 lock(sb_internal);
 lock(fs_reclaim);
 lock(sb_internal);
*** DEADLOCK ***

 3 locks held by kswapd0/711:
 #0: 000000000ba86300 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
 #1: 000000004a5100f8 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_node+0x9a/0x380
 #2: 00000000f956fa46 (&type->s_umount_key#30){++++}, at: super_cache_scan+0x35/0x1d0

stack backtrace:
 CPU: 7 PID: 711 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.2.11-gentoo #2
 Hardware name: Dell Inc. Precision Tower 3620/0MWYPT, BIOS 2.4.2 09/29/2017
 Call Trace:
 dump_stack+0x85/0xc7
 print_circular_bug.cold.40+0x1d9/0x235
 __lock_acquire+0x18b1/0x1f00
 lock_acquire+0xa6/0x170
 ? start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
 __sb_start_write+0xf6/0x150
 ? start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
 start_transaction+0x3a8/0x500
 btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode+0x59/0x110
 btrfs_evict_inode+0x19e/0x4c0
 ? var_wake_function+0x20/0x20
 evict+0xbc/0x1f0
 inode_lru_isolate+0x113/0x190
 ? discard_new_inode+0xc0/0xc0
 __list_lru_walk_one.isra.4+0x5c/0x100
 ? discard_new_inode+0xc0/0xc0
 list_lru_walk_one+0x32/0x50
 prune_icache_sb+0x36/0x80
 super_cache_scan+0x14a/0x1d0
 do_shrink_slab+0x131/0x320
 shrink_node+0xf7/0x380
 balance_pgdat+0x2d5/0x640
 kswapd+0x2ba/0x5e0
 ? __wake_up_common_lock+0x90/0x90
 kthread+0x147/0x160
 ? balance_pgdat+0x640/0x640
 ? __kthread_create_on_node+0x160/0x160
 ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30

This is because btrfs_new_inode() calls new_inode() under the
transaction.  We could probably move the new_inode() outside of this but
for now just wrap it in memalloc_nofs_save().

Reported-by: Zdenek Sojka <zsojka@seznam.cz>
Fixes: 712e36c5

 ("btrfs: use GFP_KERNEL in btrfs_alloc_inode")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.16+
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>