Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: use kvmalloc_array for hugetlb_fault_mutex_table

[Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>]

> On Oct 6, 2026, at 16:02, Dheeraj Kumar Srivastava <dheerajkumar.srivastava@amd.com> wrote:
> 
> On systems/VMs with a large number of CPUs (e.g. 4096), hugetlb_init()
> computes num_fault_mutexes = roundup_pow_of_two(8 * num_possible_cpus())
> = 32768.  The subsequent kmalloc for the mutex table can exceed
> MAX_PAGE_ORDER when struct mutex is enlarged by debug options like
> CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES and CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, resulting in:
> 
>  WARNING: at __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof (order > MAX_PAGE_ORDER)
>  kernel BUG at mm/hugetlb.c (BUG_ON(!hugetlb_fault_mutex_table))
>  Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
> 
> Switch to kvmalloc_array() so the allocation falls back to vmalloc when
> the contiguous physical allocation is too large.  The table is only
> accessed by index, so virtual contiguity is sufficient.
> 
> Fixes: 8382d914ebf7 ("mm, hugetlb: improve page-fault scalability")
> Signed-off-by: Dheeraj Kumar Srivastava <dheerajkumar.srivastava@amd.com>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index cea25773a6c9..f1b982595151 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -4177,7 +4177,8 @@ static int __init hugetlb_init(void)
> 	num_fault_mutexes = 1;
> #endif
> 	hugetlb_fault_mutex_table =
> - 		kmalloc_objs(struct mutex, num_fault_mutexes);
> + 		kvmalloc_array(num_fault_mutexes,
> +			       sizeof(*hugetlb_fault_mutex_table), GFP_KERNEL);

Why not use kvmalloc_objs instead? A little simple.

Thanks

> 	BUG_ON(!hugetlb_fault_mutex_table);
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < num_fault_mutexes; i++)
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>