Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate: fix hugetlbfs deadlock by respecting lock ordering

["David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 1/9/26 04:47, Jinchao Wang wrote:
> Fix an AB-BA deadlock between hugetlbfs_punch_hole() and page migration.
> 
> The deadlock occurs because migration violates the lock ordering defined
> in mm/rmap.c for hugetlbfs:
> 
>    * hugetlbfs PageHuge() take locks in this order:
>    * hugetlb_fault_mutex
>    * vma_lock
>    * mapping->i_mmap_rwsem
>    * folio_lock
> 
> The following trace illustrates the inversion:
> 
> Task A (punch_hole):             Task B (migration):
> --------------------             -------------------
> 1. i_mmap_lock_write(mapping)    1. folio_lock(folio)
> 2. folio_lock(folio)             2. i_mmap_lock_read(mapping)
>     (blocks waiting for B)           (blocks waiting for A)
> 
> Task A is blocked in the punch-hole path:
>    hugetlbfs_fallocate
>      hugetlbfs_punch_hole
>        hugetlbfs_zero_partial_page
>          folio_lock
> 
> Task B is blocked in the migration path:
>    migrate_pages
>      unmap_and_move_huge_page
>        remove_migration_ptes
>          __rmap_walk_file
>            i_mmap_lock_read
> 
> To fix this, adjust unmap_and_move_huge_page() to respect the established
> hierarchy. If i_mmap_rwsem is acquired during try_to_migrate(), hold it


I'm confused. Isn't it unmap_and_move_huge_page() that grabs the 
i_mmap_rwsem during hugetlb_page_mapping_lock_write() (where we do a 
try-lock)?


We now handle file-backed folios correctly I think. Could we somehow 
also be in trouble for anon folios? Because there, we'd still take the 
rmap lock after grabbing the folio lock.


-- 
Cheers

David