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, 2 May 2023 19:12:14 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     Justin Forbes <jforbes@fedoraproject.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        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
Message-ID: <ZFE2Xu3yTsk2e2BZ@kernel.org>
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>
 <86pm7ihl0i.wl-maz@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <86pm7ihl0i.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2023 15:07:41 +0100,
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 04:24:38PM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 11:02 PM 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 asking why
> > > > did you switch from the default order at all.
> > > 
> > > 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. 

The memory size of the machine or how heavy the workloads it runs have
nothing to do with MAX_ORDER. Again, x86 and s390 are perfectly fine with
MAX_ORDER == 10 ...

> > 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.

... but this indeed could be the reason to increase MAX_ORDER.

> > 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.

Yeah, if we'd knew what exactly requires such huge contiguous allocation,
we probably could fix that and leave Kconfig alone.
 
-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.