On 23 Mar 2023, at 6:37, Mike Rapoport wrote: > 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. I got an error report from kernel test robot, which set -1 to ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER via random config generator[1]. Does the EXPERT option prevent kernel test robot from generating such config? Or we should fix random config generator? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/91E887E4-0867-421F-9C75-FB9CFF15C33A@xxxxxxxxxx/ -- Best Regards, Yan, Zi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
