Re: [PATCH] percpu: Fix hint invariant breakage

Dennis Zhou
2026-03-21T17:09:41Z

Hello,

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:52:14AM +0000, Joonwon Kang wrote:
> 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:
>

First I'd just like to apologize. I spent an hour yesterday trying to
remember why the invariant exists and the reality is this code is more
clever than it needs to be.

As Andrew asked, how did you come across this? It's pretty obscure so
thank you for taking the time to look at it.

> - 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) {

I think this should be <=.
Given hints as [hint_start, size].

contig_hint = [64, 64]
scan_hint = [160, 64]

Free [224, 32].

Without <=, we don't promote the contig_hint and leave the stale
scan_hint.

> 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) {

I think this too should be <=.

scan_hint = [16, 8]
contig_hint = [32, 96]

free [24, 8]

scan_hint stays [16, 8] instead of being cleared.

> 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
>

Ultimately as I re-read this code, it might be nice to rewrite it so
that scan_hint can be kept separately. The code is a little too clever
with trying to avoid stating new_region overlaps scan_hint or
contig_hint.

I recently started shimming out the bitmap code in userspace so
hopefully I can test it for performance / correctness more rigorously.

Thanks,
Dennis