Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: fix vmap_purge_lock livelock under memory pressure

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 05:50:19PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote:
> From: Ye Liu <[email protected]>
> 
> 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 changes:
> 
> 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. __purge_vmap_area_lazy(): purge all vmap nodes inline instead of
>    scheduling purge_vmap_node via workqueue and calling flush_work()
>    while holding vmap_purge_lock.  The workqueue dispatch + flush
>    pattern under a mutex is the deadlock trigger: if no free worker
>    threads are available (all blocked on the same lock), flush_work()
>    never returns and the lock is held indefinitely.
> 
> Fixes: 7679ba6b36db ("mm: vmalloc: add a shrinker to drain vmap pools")
> Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <[email protected]>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index bea9f76ed7e7..41443708d22d 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2358,7 +2358,6 @@ static bool __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>  		bool full_pool_decay)
>  {
>  	unsigned long nr_purged_areas = 0;
> -	unsigned int nr_purge_helpers;
>  	static cpumask_t purge_nodes;
>  	unsigned int nr_purge_nodes;
>  	struct vmap_node *vn;
> @@ -2397,36 +2396,17 @@ static bool __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>  	if (nr_purge_nodes > 0) {
>  		flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, end);
>  
> -		/* One extra worker is per a lazy_max_pages() full set minus one. */
> -		nr_purge_helpers = atomic_long_read(&vmap_lazy_nr) / lazy_max_pages();
> -		nr_purge_helpers = clamp(nr_purge_helpers, 1U, nr_purge_nodes) - 1;
> -
> -		for_each_cpu(i, &purge_nodes) {
> -			vn = &vmap_nodes[i];
> -
> -			if (nr_purge_helpers > 0) {
> -				INIT_WORK(&vn->purge_work, purge_vmap_node);
> -
> -				if (cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_online_mask))
> -					schedule_work_on(i, &vn->purge_work);
> -				else
> -					schedule_work(&vn->purge_work);
> -
> -				nr_purge_helpers--;
> -			} else {
> -				vn->purge_work.func = NULL;
> -				purge_vmap_node(&vn->purge_work);
> -				nr_purged_areas += vn->nr_purged;
> -			}
> -		}
> -
> +		/*
> +		 * Purge all nodes inline.  Do not schedule_work() and
> +		 * flush_work() here: flush_work() while holding
> +		 * vmap_purge_lock can deadlock if the worker pool is
> +		 * starved (e.g. all workers blocked on this same lock
> +		 * in the direct reclaim path via vmap_node_shrink_scan).
> +		 */
>  		for_each_cpu(i, &purge_nodes) {
>  			vn = &vmap_nodes[i];
> -
> -			if (vn->purge_work.func) {
> -				flush_work(&vn->purge_work);
> -				nr_purged_areas += vn->nr_purged;
> -			}
> +			purge_vmap_node(&vn->purge_work);
> +			nr_purged_areas += vn->nr_purged;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> @@ -5519,10 +5499,21 @@ vmap_node_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  {
>  	struct vmap_node *vn;
>  
> -	guard(mutex)(&vmap_purge_lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * This shrinker is invoked from direct reclaim path where memory
> +	 * pressure is already high.  Blocking on vmap_purge_lock here can
> +	 * cause a pile-up of tasks all waiting for the same mutex while
> +	 * the lock holder may itself be blocked in flush_work() waiting for
> +	 * a worker that is stuck in the same reclaim path.  Use trylock to
> +	 * avoid this; skipping a pool decay cycle is harmless.
> +	 */
> +	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;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 
Have you seen any report about the problem you described?

--
Uladzislau Rezki