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

[Jinchao Wang <wangjinchao600@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 02:39:08PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> 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)?
Yes, but the lock is released before remove_migration_ptes().

Task A can enter the race window between
	i_mmap_unlock_write(mapping)
and
	remove_migration_ptes() -> i_mmap_lock_read(mapping).

This window was introduced by the change below:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/diff/mm/migrate.c?id=336bf30eb765

> 
> 
> 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