From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "Oscar Salvador (SUSE)" <osalvador@kernel.org>
Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: hugetlb: Prevent write fault livelocks on stale TLB entries
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:29:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <avXNMuvCNyLwk7wt@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <avQvk0oxEHTLFacU@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 10:04:19AM +0100, Oscar Salvador (SUSE) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 08:39:02PM -0800, Chris Down wrote:
> > In Meta production, we have had tasks get stuck in a fault loop while
> > using hugetlb on arm64. During my investigations I found that affected
> > tasks share a private hugetlb page.
> >
> > Looking at the stuck task states, I found the following ordering:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > ---- ----
> > read page
> > [read only entry cached in TLB]
> > write page
> > hugetlb_fault()
> > hugetlb_wp()
> > [reuse folio]
> > set_huge_ptep_maybe_writable()
> > set_huge_ptep_writable()
> > [flush local TLB only]
> >
> > write page using stale entry
> > hugetlb_fault()
> > huge_ptep_set_access_flags()
> > [entry already writable, no flush]
> > retry write using stale entry
> > [fault indefinitely. well, that's not ideal!]
> >
> > The reason is that when a write fault makes a non-contiguous hugetlb
> > entry writable, it only invalidates the local TLB. However, another CPU
> > can keep the old read-only entry, so its write will fault even though
> > the page table already permits it. hugetlb_fault() then finds nothing to
> > change and leaves the stale entry in place, so the same write keeps
> > going round in circles.
> >
> > This is particularly bad because, if the kernel is copying to user
> > memory, the retry stays inside the kernel and the task can't act on the
> > pending signal.
> >
> > It can even remain unkillable while holding locks across the copy,
> > resulting in further failures. For example, a read into a hugetlb
> > buffer can hold the pipe mutex and block other users of the pipe until
> > the loop ends, causing cascading lockups across the machine.
> >
> > To fix this, when a write fault finds nothing to change in a
> > non-contiguous hugetlb entry, let's invalidate the local entry.
> >
> > Fixes: cb1fa2e99955 ("arm64, tlbflush: don't TLBI broadcast if page reused in write fault")
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
>
> This makes sense to me, and I see that commit cb1fa2e99955 ("arm64, tlbflush:
> don't TLBI broadcast if page reused in write fault") only invalidated local tlb
> for cont-hugetlb.
> Reading the changelog, I guess that was an oversight because I could not find
> the reason behind.
I think you mean non-contiguous hugetlb here? cb1fa2e99955 switched
__ptep_set_access_flags() to local invalidation, used on the
non-contiguous hugetlb path. Contiguous hugetlb updates still broadcast
through get_clear_contig_flush().
Ordinary contpte mappings also switched to local invalidation but those
go through the generic fault handler and its fix_spurious_fault()
fallback. That fallback is what the hugetlb path was missing.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-12 14:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-11 4:39 [PATCH] arm64: hugetlb: Prevent write fault livelocks on stale TLB entries Chris Down
2026-11-11 9:04 ` Oscar Salvador (SUSE)
2026-11-12 14:29 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2026-11-12 3:08 ` Huang, Ying
2026-11-12 14:50 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=avXNMuvCNyLwk7wt@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=osalvador@kernel.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox