Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling
btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch.

Normally this is OK, as btrfs_qgroup_accounting_extents() is only called
inside btrfs_commit_transaction() just be commit_cowonly_roots().

However there is a exception at create_pending_snapshot(), which will
call btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() but no any commit root switch.

In case of creating a snapshot whose parent root is itself (create a
snapshot of fs tree), it will corrupt qgroup by the following trace:
(skipped unrelated data)
======
btrfs_qgroup_account_extent: bytenr = 29786112, num_bytes = 16384, nr_old_roots = 0, nr_new_roots = 1
qgroup_update_counters: qgid = 5, cur_old_count = 0, cur_new_count = 1, rfer = 0, excl = 0
qgroup_update_counters: qgid = 5, cur_old_count = 0, cur_new_count = 1, rfer = 16384, excl = 16384
btrfs_qgroup_account_extent: bytenr = 29786112, num_bytes = 16384, nr_old_roots = 0, nr_new_roots = 0
======

The problem here is in first qgroup_account_extent(), the
nr_new_roots of the extent is 1, which means its reference got
increased, and qgroup increased its rfer and excl.

But at second qgroup_account_extent(), its reference got decreased, but
between these two qgroup_account_extent(), there is no switch roots.
This leads to the same nr_old_roots, and this extent just got ignored by
qgroup, which means this extent is wrongly accounted.

Fix it by call commit_cowonly_roots() after qgroup_account_extent() in
create_pending_snapshot(), with needed preparation.

Mark: I added a check at the top of qgroup_account_snapshot() to skip this
code if qgroups are turned off. xfstest btrfs/122 exposes this problem.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>