Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Date: 2023-03-23 10:16:41
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-m68k, linux-mm, linux-sh, lkml, sparclinux
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@kernel.org> 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@kernel.org> --- 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. -- Catalin