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.
