From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@fedoraproject.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmforbes@linuxtx.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:01:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZEv76qfIiJcUvdql@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230428153646.823736-1-jforbes@fedoraproject.org>
+ Mike and Andrew
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 10:36:45AM -0500, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> While the ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER changes clarified the descriptions quite
> a bit, the aarch64 specific change moved this config to sit behind
> CONFIG_EXPERT. This becomes problematic when distros are setting this to
> a non default value already. Pushing it behind EXPERT where it was not
> before will silently change the configuration for users building with
> oldconfig. If distros patch out if EXPERT downstream, it still creates
> problems for users testing out upstream patches, or trying to bisect to
> find the root of problem, as the configuration will change unexpectedly,
> possibly leading to different behavior and false results.
>
> Whem I asked about reverting the EXPERT, dependency, I was asked to add
> the ranges back.
>
> This essentially reverts commit 34affcd7577a232803f729d1870ba475f294e4ea
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin M. Forbes <jforbes@fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index b1201d25a8a4..dae18ac01e94 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -1516,9 +1516,11 @@ config XEN
> # 16K | 27 | 14 | 13 | 11 |
> # 64K | 29 | 16 | 13 | 13 |
> config ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
> - int "Order of maximal physically contiguous allocations" if EXPERT && (ARM64_4K_PAGES || ARM64_16K_PAGES)
> + int "Order of maximal physically contiguous allocations" 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"
> help
> The kernel page allocator limits the size of maximal physically
The revert looks fine to me:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
For the record, the original discussion:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAFxkdAr5C7ggZ+WdvDbsfmwuXujT_z_x3qcUnhnCn-WrAurvgA@mail.gmail.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@fedoraproject.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmforbes@linuxtx.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:01:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZEv76qfIiJcUvdql@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230428153646.823736-1-jforbes@fedoraproject.org>
+ Mike and Andrew
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 10:36:45AM -0500, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> While the ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER changes clarified the descriptions quite
> a bit, the aarch64 specific change moved this config to sit behind
> CONFIG_EXPERT. This becomes problematic when distros are setting this to
> a non default value already. Pushing it behind EXPERT where it was not
> before will silently change the configuration for users building with
> oldconfig. If distros patch out if EXPERT downstream, it still creates
> problems for users testing out upstream patches, or trying to bisect to
> find the root of problem, as the configuration will change unexpectedly,
> possibly leading to different behavior and false results.
>
> Whem I asked about reverting the EXPERT, dependency, I was asked to add
> the ranges back.
>
> This essentially reverts commit 34affcd7577a232803f729d1870ba475f294e4ea
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin M. Forbes <jforbes@fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index b1201d25a8a4..dae18ac01e94 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -1516,9 +1516,11 @@ config XEN
> # 16K | 27 | 14 | 13 | 11 |
> # 64K | 29 | 16 | 13 | 13 |
> config ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
> - int "Order of maximal physically contiguous allocations" if EXPERT && (ARM64_4K_PAGES || ARM64_16K_PAGES)
> + int "Order of maximal physically contiguous allocations" 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"
> help
> The kernel page allocator limits the size of maximal physically
The revert looks fine to me:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
For the record, the original discussion:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAFxkdAr5C7ggZ+WdvDbsfmwuXujT_z_x3qcUnhnCn-WrAurvgA@mail.gmail.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-28 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-28 15:36 [PATCH] Revert arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER Justin M. Forbes
2023-04-28 15:36 ` Justin M. Forbes
2023-04-28 17:01 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2023-04-28 17:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-04-29 19:01 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-04-29 19:01 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-04-29 22:42 ` Justin Forbes
2023-04-29 22:42 ` Justin Forbes
2023-04-30 3:54 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-04-30 3:54 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-05-01 21:24 ` Justin Forbes
2023-05-01 21:24 ` Justin Forbes
2023-05-02 14:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-05-02 14:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-05-02 14:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-05-02 14:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-05-02 16:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-05-02 16:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-05-02 16:15 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-05-02 16:15 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-05-02 17:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-05-02 17:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-05-03 10:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-05-03 10:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-05-03 12:08 ` Philip Li
2023-05-03 12:08 ` Philip Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZEv76qfIiJcUvdql@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jforbes@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=jmforbes@linuxtx.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.