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:   Tue, 02 May 2023 15:21:17 +0100
Message-ID: <86pm7ihl0i.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Justin Forbes <jforbes@fedoraproject.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jmforbes@linuxtx.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
In-Reply-To: <ZFEZLZHBosQK9xaH@arm.com>
References: <20230428153646.823736-1-jforbes@fedoraproject.org>
        <ZEv76qfIiJcUvdql@arm.com>
        <ZE1pcwi95nPdlKzN@kernel.org>
        <CAFbkSA3SzjWZ_Q8XC6-_Kzc+jmUN6sG7vzbSD5X1bRvPUaJg3Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <ZE3mdYajdFnvl1by@kernel.org>
        <CAFbkSA0O-4YgNt-7KPhvx+vhvRNc38PO8E--GVAWKVgHK-_9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
        <ZFEZLZHBosQK9xaH@arm.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/28.2
 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 02 May 2023 15:07:41 +0100,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 04:24:38PM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 11:02=E2=80=AFPM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org=
> wrote:
> > > Why the default MAX_ORDER was not acceptable on arm64 server machines=
 but
> > > it is fine on, say, x86 and s390?
> > > I'm not asking how you made it possible in Fedora and RHEL, I'm askin=
g why
> > > did you switch from the default order at all.
> >=20
> > Because the MAX_ORDER on aarch64 with 4K pages is more tuned to the
> > needs of the average edge client, not so much those of a server class
> > machine.  And I get it, I would say well over 90% of the Fedora users
> > running aarch64 are indeed running on a rPi or similar with a small
> > memory footprint, and workloads which match that.  But we do support
> > and run a 4K page size aarch64 kernel on proper server class hardware,
> > running typical server workloads, and RHEL has a lot more users in the
> > server class than edge clients.   RHEL could probably default to 64K
> > pages, and most users would be happy with that. Fedora certainly could
> > not.=20
>=20
> I was talking to Marc Zyngier earlier and he reckons the need for a
> higher MAX_ORDER is the GIC driver ITS allocation for Thunder-X. I'm
> happy to make ARCH_MAX_ORDER higher in defconfig (12, 13?) if
> CONFIG_ARCH_THUNDER. Mobile vendors won't enable this platform.

In any case, I'd like to know exactly *what* requires it. The only
platform I know would benefit from this is the old TX1, but this
machine is more a boat anchor than a real server.

	M.

--=20
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.