From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f70.google.com (mail-ej1-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AFD74AA03E for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2026 14:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791382025; cv=none; b=IFXHWpGQiMUtwzz31Q7aBp8H5QwMkhSuksLJH/SvClgD7Cs8dbJaQ9nbAmUFEM6qB0hMiawET5n9DPU8irqUB4AKeItL0ESnQuiuus90PjN6lzZrNRyFMZiyJKHE7bgTu757GjUjofq07JLlu8mQ08hpnkQrpYGzgvQd0+xnJw0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791382025; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wFiCFGitZ0uN/vgxSf2rcN644RgkZhN3J2GoUKr3AXo=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=ZvVqIA4t8893KD0xG5qfqC9TmMmsOfvpK07EShiQW6u8b5sxy9Ox5jZlhHOIlq1p5tnBOY4UHYtTCS0OQ4ZJw76V+5HAj+n9xaB6jAmYHT+oGpPC56kgFRD5tOZDAEzVgBaORabHA9oU8IXhwcDIZ2jYjkiteDDLyRrm/YtoHhg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--tarunsahu.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=b1gqx6Yc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--tarunsahu.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="b1gqx6Yc" Received: by mail-ej1-f70.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c2d93b92937so408701466b.1 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 07:06:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1791382017; x=1791986817; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=imywIXeZN+/or3shxnnFEehI44taL7I6PvUTOA24c8E=; b=b1gqx6YcFJmlnECNl8b+WIKk2s2cm82XpyjNYAJmZ4+8jLk3KISzQ21jJG2+lSHUZC cBVlQvDNPqC5eamJ1DwZWhLHuHl6PmpTt0sXKLTlDQCOaNR9JGylCLttiAIVf0erNmiK MYcE/Bwb4NvNbu8rXRujqF5SYR3nuum6KnQOqo/DwAcjqFY8Zv5frr9kM6JhzlV+zJe7 YNFsrxNjD98eoih1MKk6F8RW2tHe4h+/hdkAErrUFj7ZfHFxIRkdN55pXhbHrJqoQvR1 Tv+QdUg/SOrqaSzWzuqLw+IJvBvSpt8LLWsZSgunJ7RB/P2DHwoUPbdlkCBol/1O3iO0 eKaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791382017; x=1791986817; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=imywIXeZN+/or3shxnnFEehI44taL7I6PvUTOA24c8E=; b=yhpoo5LOPV4qtykGb68NppvRDsV2iDBkN75Jih0S0ctsMzerlkbqkTwQGwIWQ3/Tmv Bq/YRIVOYZN/NvtYLu4YcwpC505FVlnmf7KxCotK//5JU6qKKPwBwrYtnhfkSCWDNYzz H2WCNY3RFoILEO6m0DZxZy//jDoV/O1aMHus5GIRVOgAR2UsxuelZiitGkTALRn+LLJE h1pzxEyPmQmMKv6ebRVvgydsDj4WwiXIzn/ksND7rt3T3bhCrqXefD0cyAXHiEk7TCSN uOEU/lZqngxcltJLkctyt0ZW5up6WiSd2VrLy2Dp/J3I1de4D3AUy7fd6oFLL8v2PJfi /6xw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBxwUqP8zdSBDBWhH9+Z8DPiOeUb/o5sWog0GP5ALt7rXwJPSxf43d+ZBOFEFptplcadlQ++QzZbjfPGki0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYLqB3r+jgilycAxO+EXlyiTX//GXrtgLfmshk77NDnwwpPFJ0tD vM/yaqkK3hfc/Pi331H8sFM+nlfz4qX7Atfs2LArceUGSGWjLbesejBS7S9rLe+DTw3B59MaqqW m5XgwbqxtIyNL+U/YtA== X-Received: from ejeck7-n2.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:907:e1c7:20b0:c2e:3bb5:3475]) (user=tarunsahu job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:906:7955:b0:c2a:fbe1:7340 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c317c0d81f8mr206753866b.41.1791382017061; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 07:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:06:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20260926092448.4090401-1-tarunsahu@google.com> <20260926092448.4090401-2-tarunsahu@google.com> Message-ID: <9huzy0c9siyn.fsf@tarunix.c.googlers.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] memblock: use binary search to locate candidate regions From: tarunsahu@google.com To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Andrew Morton , Pasha Tatashin , dmatlack@google.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dev.jain@arm.com, Pratyush Yadav , linux-mm@kvack.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mike Rapoport writes: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 09:24:48AM +0000, Tarun Sahu wrote: >> Use binary search (memblock_bsearch_start) in memblock_add_range() and >> memblock_isolate_range() to locate candidate regions instead of linearly >> scanning from index 0. >> >> Under heavy memory fragmentation (such as KHO page preservation registering >> hundreds of thousands of disjoint folios), scanning from index 0 on every >> insertion and isolation results in O(N^2) complexity, causing boot-time >> memory retrieval to take several minutes (~268s for 393k pages). >> >> Using binary search reduces the worst-case complexity to O(N log N) >> (and O(N) for sequential appends), cutting KHO memory retrieval time >> from ~268s to ~50ms. >> >> memblock_search() open codes the same binary search, so reimplement it on >> top of the new helper. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tarun Sahu >> >> mm/memblock.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- >> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c >> index 59dda7d085f3..87c71435c80c 100644 >> --- a/mm/memblock.c >> +++ b/mm/memblock.c >> @@ -586,6 +586,33 @@ static void __init_memblock memblock_insert_region(struct memblock_type *type, >> type->total_size += size; >> } >> >> +/** >> + * memblock_bsearch_start - Find the first region index where rend > base >> + * @type: memblock type to search >> + * @base: base physical address of the candidate range >> + * >> + * Returns the first region index that could potentially overlap @base. >> + */ >> +static int __init_memblock memblock_bsearch_start(struct memblock_type *type, >> + phys_addr_t base) > > I'd call it __memblock_search() Okay. > >> +{ >> + int mid, low = 0; >> + int high = type->cnt; >> + >> + if (type->cnt && base >= type->regions[type->cnt - 1].base + >> + type->regions[type->cnt - 1].size) >> + return type->cnt; > > Using local variables would make it more readable IMHO. removing this as per next comment. Let me know what you think? Should we keep this optimization or not. ~Tarun > >> + >> + while (low < high) { >> + mid = (low + high) / 2; >> + if (type->regions[mid].base + type->regions[mid].size <= base) >> + low = mid + 1; >> + else >> + high = mid; >> + } >> + return low; >> +} >> + >> /** >> * memblock_add_range - add new memblock region >> * @type: memblock type to add new region into >> @@ -609,7 +636,7 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_add_range(struct memblock_type *type, >> bool insert = false; >> phys_addr_t obase = base; >> phys_addr_t end = base + memblock_cap_size(base, &size); >> - int idx, nr_new, start_rgn = -1, end_rgn; >> + int idx, start_idx, nr_new, start_rgn = -1, end_rgn; >> >> if (!size) >> return 0; >> @@ -644,8 +671,9 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_add_range(struct memblock_type *type, >> */ >> base = obase; >> nr_new = 0; >> + start_idx = memblock_bsearch_start(type, base); >> >> - for (idx = 0; idx < type->cnt; idx++) { >> + for (idx = start_idx; idx < type->cnt; idx++) { >> struct memblock_region *rgn = &type->regions[idx]; >> phys_addr_t rbase = rgn->base; >> phys_addr_t rend = rbase + rgn->size; >> @@ -809,7 +837,7 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_isolate_range(struct memblock_type *type, >> int *start_rgn, int *end_rgn) >> { >> phys_addr_t end = base + memblock_cap_size(base, &size); >> - int idx; >> + int idx, start_idx; >> >> *start_rgn = *end_rgn = 0; >> >> @@ -821,7 +849,9 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_isolate_range(struct memblock_type *type, >> if (memblock_double_array(type, base, size) < 0) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> - for (idx = 0; idx < type->cnt; idx++) { >> + start_idx = memblock_bsearch_start(type, base); >> + >> + for (idx = start_idx; idx < type->cnt; idx++) { >> struct memblock_region *rgn = &type->regions[idx]; >> phys_addr_t rbase = rgn->base; >> phys_addr_t rend = rbase + rgn->size; >> @@ -2062,19 +2092,10 @@ void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit) >> >> static int __init_memblock memblock_search(struct memblock_type *type, phys_addr_t addr) >> { >> - unsigned int left = 0, right = type->cnt; >> + int idx = memblock_bsearch_start(type, addr); >> >> - do { >> - unsigned int mid = (right + left) / 2; >> - >> - if (addr < type->regions[mid].base) >> - right = mid; >> - else if (addr >= (type->regions[mid].base + >> - type->regions[mid].size)) >> - left = mid + 1; >> - else >> - return mid; >> - } while (left < right); >> + if (idx < type->cnt && addr >= type->regions[idx].base) >> + return idx; >> return -1; >> } >> >> base-commit: 1f18d740165163910df64d3063e1ad31648bc5e0 >> -- >> 2.56.0.rc1.315.gc6ed9934b7-goog >> > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike.