From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f42.google.com (mail-ed1-f42.google.com [209.85.208.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61993481669 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 16:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788281998; cv=none; b=tT7YF3wdVbSzeBiE58KCkrq03BfoHVeVwoy1zld2CSkECsTmfgkBMfmVAnrwto0T2S2c/UDkAdH9B3F6rffmHI8aDx0fXHdh3Ul42sNez2cPCOCN++K+d3G+QZfs/iYuy56FsZGY/Z4/YWmFUUCx2efehnP3sUn+bUGj9N3FmGA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788281998; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hYNsP2Ux6bqrn9MJ570MryJjcpcqdR/wwLJFVZzsR1c=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QCRqHrfJq5vMFRpq4BEUEnCsp2vot2nqTNT3c54C6d2vMtzcxW6Ic36cZ3eKOSs9G+jslf4PZj9sQWgYBQXJZC5YnqPKV7ysQ/G1hDGjPYoB6w7nzG2R7c4tSYjjfm4qcjhhknLdFAoAKBY2+Tce8b5DzYYhfKC8feA+/H/bNNU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=MHykbZN/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.42 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="MHykbZN/" Received: by mail-ed1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6a5f968ada7so117985a12.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2026 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1788281994; x=1788886794; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:date :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=+u2ZpPe4WF1Q2YUp42qnHHNqN5pF4v/rnDCZv4ozNq4=; b=MHykbZN/W5Z6bwrImOF3R7AaSclEGMRC8nezv7pae7nbjH+JDC+JXBReh85eL+3C+u KeiUFMta18Rv4xHIVO1dYkFN4cpd+R3JfauVUX9QVDG5oMguSatNEMEjDNReklc8e0iY cx695YSbbo6q8GzPDS3N05RAPIsRS+Zevof3vIcXjzFx8/Apv4LlcIxYFXsb0NAlo9k0 lUSGTLCJFmqwYfrd/3mYPNXKk+yxgSSRf+YsXkjQTO8JnheIf2F+0ClVF9Vs8pX1wkK0 jyMeH0qeKxLNjAXI+czhhzsB2cdpg91iLMbj02ARlYg86vgj1ynMfSA4oGq/QyuFfp9K Gtzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1788281994; x=1788886794; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:date :from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=+u2ZpPe4WF1Q2YUp42qnHHNqN5pF4v/rnDCZv4ozNq4=; b=XZCio4uPxjS9LVx3TrMFUZzvnXJa8zpDVbTIezgDhdH8gp7I1Dvy8rikU+fen65PnV QJlly84yO4wqVdafYnXFDlBCwL/FakcDhEhaaVxvbezg/KGS5P1NqL7qsh40RfISGz/x 6XrLYwIhX/kfmMxpycMDc4JJO/ceiqzglKRtMthdu0J2SL6dlQQRy4krs2RqlBMfViCs iFbTRtKGyPQqmM60cHBcFRwKBb5eqPvMzaSnWhy/2cqJfs7AmeXhEebqhJ2Rjw6+niJ5 DXPDOyfSjfYbvfyKTCQvWF1p47pLdie0LZhU9HnBlD4nPIt51recFzBaPLCSBfUHJQUA CULA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBy50XFQOQFiII0uwzmBYhTIkRcFxo2Ub9lvvFIlbXpIrTzNQDfCqS8PN8fpS2c7EDtCA/9LAtVgthT1CXI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++mRBEk0Z0VZXvbtKA4t53dpducnBwLfSwFxGCKVwjWszjWr3Xlu rJBzbScl8TJyxhvpHDwalgfaD8yE4aByBjMVWgz9YPC8K+SytE3EgnSZvs7ICzlR X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou1hTEGgEAYh9TwZ9JS3a4CYI9EGRE5RQACiDJ9LhUbLpUNAQthEdpsAd9NPHsw rAaW9fdEEhkCHNaviLDxA0j734cJvPmJpTjWnpt4JTflm6hJhUTtEu8QJLl6Ueggi3w37QkjKzC Mw5n/llXJrwV9sMnnCxX5sie+7KcYo44U0EqqvNlo/pSGHZwdkMHo+NJU0B6tkrpqjh2vjAz0lp 8tMB//qhZa65iOpbcxEEE4fAx1b59suhI8CKjZO2rqQ5sUXAgInmxLcOt6t76AIGk+x9tc3q0GO 45B0MulfYrFPO3yYPhYvKnI4HexanSCDnsrMie7WINzKxZe9ulkLGNbMJiHiGnENRNkPBIfVxNG 3AfC2PeUVthLItSx/bHWRxuZVS5kPfAFR7scpKldKaCZrBetgVqfVcVINyWvtcMgp1cwd/B6g1i TONNKKEvPCqSUAHQ1A0iRgXaFXARc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4608:b0:6a6:485b:3b7e with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6a66a59b428mr4221026a12.1.1788281994348; Tue, 01 Sep 2026 09:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from milan ([2001:9b1:d5a0:a500::24b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6a67f895e14sm46521a12.3.2026.09.01.09.59.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 01 Sep 2026 09:59:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 18:59:51 +0200 To: Uladzislau Rezki , Andrew Morton Cc: Ye Liu , Dev Jain , Andrew Morton , Ye Liu , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: vmalloc: fix vmap_purge_lock livelock under memory pressure Message-ID: References: <20260828091753.299295-1-ye.liu@linux.dev> <20260828110503.e1eff32a9b7df9a8b2ddd4d6@linux-foundation.org> <54bd749f-04f5-4665-bd5f-d485e7197132@arm.com> <2e9488bb-feb6-4994-92e3-e5ef0c1ff5ec@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 06:43:43PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 05:07:30PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote: > > > > > > 在 2026/9/1 14:22, Dev Jain 写道: > > > > > > > > > On 31/08/26 3:24 pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 11:39:14AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 28/08/26 11:35 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 17:17:53 +0800 Ye Liu wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> From: Ye Liu > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The vmap_purge_lock mutex can be held for an extended period by > > >>>>> __purge_vmap_area_lazy() which calls flush_work() to wait for > > >>>>> purge_vmap_node workers while holding the lock. Under memory > > >>>>> pressure, those workers may themselves be blocked in direct > > >>>>> reclaim trying to acquire the same lock via the > > >>>>> vmap_node_shrink_scan() shrinker callback, creating a circular > > >>>>> dependency that deadlocks the entire system. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Two places acquire vmap_purge_lock from paths that can be reached > > >>>>> during direct reclaim: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1. vmap_node_shrink_scan(): replace blocking guard(mutex) with > > >>>>> mutex_trylock(). This is a shrinker that only decays the vmap > > >>>>> pool and returns SHRINK_STOP without freeing memory; skipping a > > >>>>> decay cycle when the lock is contended is harmless and prevents > > >>>>> tasks from piling up on the mutex in the direct reclaim path. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 2. reclaim_and_purge_vmap_areas(): replace mutex_lock() with > > >>>>> mutex_trylock(). This is called from the vmalloc allocation > > >>>>> overflow path; if trylock fails, another thread is already > > >>>>> purging and the allocator's retry will find freed space. The > > >>>>> notifier chain provides a fallback if the retry still fails. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Both trylock failures break the circular dependency: the lock > > >>>>> holder's flush_work() can complete because workers are no longer > > >>>>> blocked on vmap_purge_lock in the direct reclaim path. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks. AI review expressed a couple of concerns: > > >>>> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260828091753.299295-1-ye.liu@linux.dev > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Sounds legit to me. Now there is no guarantee of purge being successful, and we > > >>> can get a spurious failure. > > >>> > > >>> How about using a WQ_RECLAIM workqueue: > > >>> > > >>> vmap_purge_wq = alloc_workqueue("vmap_purge", > > >>> WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_PERCPU, 0); > > >>> > > >>> I see the same pattern in __lru_add_drain_all() and kmem_cache_init_late(). > > >>> > > >> WQ_MEM_RECLAIM makes sense but this is another patch. > > >> > > >> I copied here AI comment: > > >>> > > >>> Does replacing this blocking lock with a trylock break synchronization for > > >>> the callers? > > >>> > > >> No it does not. If someone is doing reclaim we do not wait and do not try > > >> to do it again thus fail allocation. > > >> > > >>> When vmalloc space is exhausted, alloc_vmap_area() calls > > >>> reclaim_and_purge_vmap_areas() and relies on its blocking behavior to ensure > > >>> that free space has actually been reclaimed before looping back to retry: > > >>> mm/vmalloc.c:alloc_vmap_area() { > > >>> ... > > >>> overflow: > > >>> if (!purged) { > > >>> reclaim_and_purge_vmap_areas(); > > >>> purged = 1; > > >>> goto retry; > > >>> } > > >>> ... > > >>> } > > >>> With this patch, if another thread holds vmap_purge_lock, mutex_trylock() > > >>> fails and the function returns immediately. > > >>> > > >> If reclaim is in progress and trylock fails a caller repeats only one > > >> time to retry an allocation. There is no any infinite loop. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> The allocator then retries > > >>> instantly without waiting for the concurrent purge to complete. > > >>> Because the retry fails and purged is already 1, could this cause the > > >>> allocation to abort and return a spurious vmalloc allocation failure > > >>> (-EBUSY or -ENOMEM)? > > >>> > > >> vmap space can be fragmented and not avail for 32-bit systems. For > > >> 64-bit system it is likely impossible. > > >> > > >> But, i think we can overt mutex_lock() into mutex_trylock() just only > > >> in the: > > >> > > >> static unsigned long > > >> vmap_node_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc) > > >> { > > >> struct vmap_node *vn; > > >> > > >> guard(mutex)(&vmap_purge_lock); > > >> for_each_vmap_node(vn) > > >> decay_va_pool_node(vn, true); > > >> > > >> return SHRINK_STOP; > > >> } > > >> > > >> so the reclaim path is not blocked. It should also address an issue > > >> reported by the Ye Liu . > > > > > > IIUC you are suggesting mutex_trylock() only in the shrinker path. But > > > then, the following is possible no: take purge lock, try to get a > > > worker thread, worker thread is stuck in vmalloc -> alloc_vmap_area > > > -> reclaim_and_purge_vmap_areas -> take purge lock? > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I lean toward the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue solution. > > After taking a closer look at the code, I noticed a subtle but > > potentially problematic scenario: > > > > When drain_vmap_area_work acquires vmap_purge_lock and calls into > > __purge_vmap_area_lazy, it may subsequently invoke queue_work/queue_work_on > > on the same CPU's system_wq. If the newly queued work ends up waiting > > for an available worker on that same CPU, while the current worker is > > blocked waiting for that very work to complete (via flush_work), > > we could end up with a self-deadlock on a single CPU. > > > > Theoretically, this seems possible. I suspect the reason we don't > > see widespread reports of such deadlocks is that the nr_purge_helpers > > logic limits the number of asynchronous workers; when resources are tight, > > it falls back to synchronous execution (purge_vmap_node directly), > > which avoids queuing additional work. > > > > Using a dedicated workqueue with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM would provide a clean, > > explicit isolation—ensuring forward progress under memory pressure and > > eliminating the risk of interfering with other subsystems' workqueues. > > I believe this approach is more robust in the long run. > > > > Perhaps like the code below： > > the dedicated queue eliminates the self‑deadlock risk, and the trylock > > in the shrinker prevents recursive lock attempts from reclaim contexts. > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > index bea9f76ed7e7..68fc1f5acb2f 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -2218,6 +2218,9 @@ static unsigned long lazy_max_pages(void) > > */ > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(vmap_purge_lock); > > > > +/* Workqueue for lazy vmap purging; WQ_MEM_RECLAIM guarantees progress. */ > > +static struct workqueue_struct *vmap_purge_wq; > > + > > /* for per-CPU blocks */ > > static void purge_fragmented_blocks_allcpus(void); > > > > @@ -2408,9 +2411,9 @@ static bool __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, > > INIT_WORK(&vn->purge_work, purge_vmap_node); > > > > if (cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_online_mask)) > > - schedule_work_on(i, &vn->purge_work); > > + queue_work_on(i, vmap_purge_wq, &vn->purge_work); > > else > > - schedule_work(&vn->purge_work); > > + queue_work(vmap_purge_wq, &vn->purge_work); > > > > nr_purge_helpers--; > > } else { > > @@ -5519,10 +5522,14 @@ vmap_node_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc) > > { > > struct vmap_node *vn; > > > > - guard(mutex)(&vmap_purge_lock); > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&vmap_purge_lock)) > > + return SHRINK_STOP; > > + > > for_each_vmap_node(vn) > > decay_va_pool_node(vn, true); > > > > + mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock); > > + > > return SHRINK_STOP; > > } > > > > @@ -5575,6 +5582,17 @@ void __init vmalloc_init(void) > > * Now we can initialize a free vmap space. > > */ > > vmap_init_free_space(); > > + > > + /* > > + * A dedicated workqueue for lazy vmap purging. WQ_MEM_RECLAIM > > + * reserves a rescue worker so queued purge work items are executed > > + * even under memory pressure, when workers of the system workqueue > > + * may be stuck in direct reclaim. > > + */ > > + vmap_purge_wq = alloc_workqueue("vmap_purge", > > + WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_PERCPU, 0); > > + WARN_ON(!vmap_purge_wq); > > + > > vmap_initialized = true; > > > I agree. We should have it and it should be as separate patch, i.e. > split vmap_node_shrink_scan() and dedicated per-cpu WQs per vmap drain. > And i sent out already the WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM and separate WQ for vmap drain logic. It looks like Andrew/me forgot about it: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260331202352.879718-1-urezki@gmail.com/ -- Uladzislau Rezki