Feedback-ID: ie3994620:Fastmail
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 18:38:55 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] drm/i915: Fix MAX_ORDER usage in
 i915_gem_object_get_pages_internal()
Message-ID: <20230315153855.aeqyxncf3k6yqipl@box>
References: <20230315113133.11326-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20230315113133.11326-5-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <7fe9a4a0-9b30-38db-e739-1dc1f7a8f74e@linux.intel.com>
 <20230315152802.gr2olzji5zhu6vdo@box>
 <f2f35037-d662-19c4-722a-02ec10f86f85@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f2f35037-d662-19c4-722a-02ec10f86f85@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 03:35:23PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 15/03/2023 15:28, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:18:52PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 15/03/2023 11:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > MAX_ORDER is not inclusive: the maximum allocation order buddy allocator
> > > > can deliver is MAX_ORDER-1.
> > > 
> > > This looks to be true on inspection:
> > > 
> > > __alloc_pages():
> > > ..
> > > 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(order >= MAX_ORDER, gfp))
> > > 
> > > So a bit of a misleading name "max".. For the i915 patch:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > I don't however see the whole series to understand the context, or how you
> > > want to handle the individual patches. Is it a tree wide cleanup of the same
> > > mistake?
> > 
> > The whole patchset can be seen here:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230315113133.11326-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com/
> > 
> > The idea is to fix all MAX_ORDER bugs first and then re-define MAX_ORDER
> > more sensibly.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> Would you like i915 to take this patch or you will be bringing the whole lot
> via some other route? Former is okay and latter should also be fine for i915
> since I don't envisage any conflicts here.

I think would be better to get it via mm tree.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov