From: Joonwon Kang <joonwonkang@google.com>
To: dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, cl@gentwo.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Joonwon Kang <joonwonkang@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH] percpu: Fix hint invariant breakage
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 11:52:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260320115214.143933-1-joonwonkang@google.com> (raw)
The invariant "scan_hint_start > contig_hint_start if and only if
scan_hint == contig_hint" should be kept for hint management. However,
it could be broken in some cases:
- if (new contig == contig_hint == scan_hint) && (contig_hint_start <
scan_hint_start < new contig start) && the new contig is to become a
new contig_hint due to its better alignment, then scan_hint should
be invalidated instead of keeping it.
- if (new contig == contig_hint > scan_hint) && (start <
contig_hint_start) && the new contig is not to become a new
contig_hint, then scan_hint should be invalidated instead of being
updated to the new contig.
This commit fixes this invariant breakage and also optimizes scan_hint
by keeping it or updating it when acceptable:
- if (new contig > contig_hint > scan_hint) && (scan_hint_start < new
contig start < contig_hint_start), then keep scan_hint instead of
invalidating it.
- if (new contig > contig_hint == scan_hint) && (contig_hint_start <
new contig start < scan_hint_start), then update scan_hint to the
old contig_hint instead of invalidating it.
- if (new contig == contig_hint > scan_hint) && (new contig start <
contig_hint_start) && the new contig is to become a new contig_hint
due to its better alignment, then update scan_hint to the old
contig_hint instead of invalidating or keeping it.
Signed-off-by: Joonwon Kang <joonwonkang@google.com>
---
mm/percpu.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index 81462ce5866e..a0e4f8acb7c2 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -641,19 +641,13 @@ static void pcpu_block_update(struct pcpu_block_md *block, int start, int end)
if (contig > block->contig_hint) {
/* promote the old contig_hint to be the new scan_hint */
if (start > block->contig_hint_start) {
- if (block->contig_hint > block->scan_hint) {
+ if (block->contig_hint > block->scan_hint ||
+ start < block->scan_hint_start) {
block->scan_hint_start =
block->contig_hint_start;
block->scan_hint = block->contig_hint;
- } else if (start < block->scan_hint_start) {
- /*
- * The old contig_hint == scan_hint. But, the
- * new contig is larger so hold the invariant
- * scan_hint_start < contig_hint_start.
- */
- block->scan_hint = 0;
}
- } else {
+ } else if (start < block->scan_hint_start) {
block->scan_hint = 0;
}
block->contig_hint_start = start;
@@ -662,20 +656,44 @@ static void pcpu_block_update(struct pcpu_block_md *block, int start, int end)
if (block->contig_hint_start &&
(!start ||
__ffs(start) > __ffs(block->contig_hint_start))) {
+ if (block->contig_hint > block->scan_hint) {
+ if (start < block->contig_hint_start) {
+ block->scan_hint = block->contig_hint;
+ block->scan_hint_start = block->contig_hint_start;
+ }
+ } else if (start > block->scan_hint_start) {
+ /*
+ * old contig_hint == old scan_hint == contig.
+ * But, the new contig is farther than the old
+ * scan_hint so hold the invariant
+ * scan_hint_start > contig_hint_start iff
+ * scan_hint == contig_hint.
+ */
+ block->scan_hint = 0;
+ }
+
/* start has a better alignment so use it */
block->contig_hint_start = start;
- if (start < block->scan_hint_start &&
- block->contig_hint > block->scan_hint)
- block->scan_hint = 0;
- } else if (start > block->scan_hint_start ||
- block->contig_hint > block->scan_hint) {
- /*
- * Knowing contig == contig_hint, update the scan_hint
- * if it is farther than or larger than the current
- * scan_hint.
- */
- block->scan_hint_start = start;
- block->scan_hint = contig;
+ } else {
+ if (block->contig_hint > block->scan_hint) {
+ if (start < block->contig_hint_start) {
+ /*
+ * old scan_hint < contig == old
+ * contig_hint. But, the new contig is
+ * before the old contig_hint so hold
+ * the invariant
+ * scan_hint_start > contig_hint_start
+ * iff scan_hint == contig_hint.
+ */
+ block->scan_hint = 0;
+ } else {
+ block->scan_hint_start = start;
+ block->scan_hint = contig;
+ }
+ } else if (start > block->scan_hint_start) {
+ block->scan_hint_start = start;
+ block->scan_hint = contig;
+ }
}
} else {
/*
--
2.53.0.1018.g2bb0e51243-goog
next reply other threads:[~2026-03-20 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-20 11:52 Joonwon Kang [this message]
2026-03-20 19:08 ` [PATCH] percpu: Fix hint invariant breakage Andrew Morton
2026-03-23 12:02 ` Joonwon Kang
2026-03-21 17:09 ` Dennis Zhou
2026-03-23 14:05 ` Joonwon Kang
2026-04-09 18:09 ` Dennis Zhou
2026-04-20 12:35 ` Joonwon Kang
2026-04-22 0:12 ` Dennis Zhou
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=20260320115214.143933-1-joonwonkang@google.com \
--to=joonwonkang@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.