Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:37:05 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
        John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of
 ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
Message-ID: <ZBwr0bXdtOtKKila@kernel.org>
References: <20230323092156.2545741-1-rppt@kernel.org>
 <20230323092156.2545741-3-rppt@kernel.org>
 <ZBwmxbRJrF8RxZEp@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZBwmxbRJrF8RxZEp@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15:33AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@kernel.org>
> > 
> > It is not a good idea to change fundamental parameters of core memory
> > management. Having predefined ranges suggests that the values within
> > those ranges are sensible, but one has to *really* understand
> > implications of changing MAX_ORDER before actually amending it and
> > ranges don't help here.
> > 
> > Drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > index e60baf7859d1..bab6483e4317 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > @@ -1489,9 +1489,7 @@ config XEN
> >  config ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
> >  	int "Maximum zone order" if ARM64_4K_PAGES || ARM64_16K_PAGES
> >  	default "13" if ARM64_64K_PAGES
> > -	range 11 13 if ARM64_16K_PAGES
> >  	default "11" if ARM64_16K_PAGES
> > -	range 10 15 if ARM64_4K_PAGES
> >  	default "10"
> 
> I don't mind rewriting the help text as in the subsequent patch but I'd
> keep the ranges as a safety measure. It's less wasted time explaining to
> people why some random max order doesn't work. Alternatively, we can
> drop the ranges but make this option configurable only if EXPERT.

I like the EXPERT alternative more. I'll add it in v2.
 
> -- 
> Catalin

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.