Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  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.