Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on 51551d71edbc998fd8c8afa7312db3d270f5998e]
url:
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Mike-Rapoport/arm-reword-ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER-prompt-and-help-text/20230323-172512
base: 51551d71edbc998fd8c8afa7312db3d270f5998e
patch link:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230323092156.2545741-3-rppt%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of
ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
config: arm64-randconfig-r031-20230322
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230324/202303240155.01y6t6fj-...@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
67409911353323ca5edf2049ef0df54132fa1ca7)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
wget
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O
~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# install arm64 cross compiling tool for clang build
# apt-get install binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu
#
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/0522f943c071abf1610651ea40405b7489c50987
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review
Mike-Rapoport/arm-reword-ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER-prompt-and-help-text/20230323-172512
git checkout 0522f943c071abf1610651ea40405b7489c50987
# save the config file
mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1
O=build_dir ARCH=arm64 olddefconfig
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1
O=build_dir ARCH=arm64 SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/iommu/ kernel/dma/ mm/
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot
| Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202303240155.01y6t6fj-...@intel.com/
All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> mm/memory.c:5791:37: warning: shift count is negative
>> [-Wshift-count-negative]
if (unlikely(pages_per_huge_page > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES)) {
^~
include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: note: expanded from macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
#define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
^ ~
include/linux/compiler.h:48:41: note: expanded from macro 'unlikely'
# define unlikely(x) (__branch_check__(x, 0, __builtin_constant_p(x)))
^
include/linux/compiler.h:33:34: note: expanded from macro '__branch_check__'
__r = __builtin_expect(!!(x), expect); \
^
>> mm/memory.c:5791:37: warning: shift count is negative
>> [-Wshift-count-negative]
if (unlikely(pages_per_huge_page > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES)) {
^~
include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: note: expanded from macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
#define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
^ ~
include/linux/compiler.h:48:68: note: expanded from macro 'unlikely'
# define unlikely(x) (__branch_check__(x, 0, __builtin_constant_p(x)))
^
include/linux/compiler.h:35:19: note: expanded from macro '__branch_check__'
expect, is_constant); \
^~~
mm/memory.c:5843:37: warning: shift count is negative
[-Wshift-count-negative]
if (unlikely(pages_per_huge_page > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES)) {
^~
include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: note: expanded from macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
#define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
^ ~
include/linux/compiler.h:48:41: note: expanded from macro 'unlikely'
# define unlikely(x) (__branch_check__(x, 0, __builtin_constant_p(x)))
^
include/linux/compiler.h:33:34: note: expanded from macro '__branch_check__'
__r = __builtin_expect(!!(x), expect); \
^
mm/memory.c:5843:37: warning: shift count is negative
[-Wshift-count-negative]
if (unlikely(pages_per_huge_page > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES)) {
^~
include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: note: expanded from macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
#define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
^ ~
include/linux/compiler.h:48:68: note: expanded from macro 'unlikely'
Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on 51551d71edbc998fd8c8afa7312db3d270f5998e]
url:
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Mike-Rapoport/arm-reword-ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER-prompt-and-help-text/20230323-172512
base: 51551d71edbc998fd8c8afa7312db3d270f5998e
patch link:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230323092156.2545741-3-rppt%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of
ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
config: arm64-randconfig-r022-20230322
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230323/202303232149.chh6khii-...@intel.com/config)
compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 12.1.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
wget
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O
~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
#
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/0522f943c071abf1610651ea40405b7489c50987
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review
Mike-Rapoport/arm-reword-ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER-prompt-and-help-text/20230323-172512
git checkout 0522f943c071abf1610651ea40405b7489c50987
# save the config file
mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1
O=build_dir ARCH=arm64 olddefconfig
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1
O=build_dir ARCH=arm64 SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/base/regmap/ drivers/iommu/
fs/proc/ mm/
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot
| Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202303232149.chh6khii-...@intel.com/
All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:25,
from mm/mm_init.c:9:
mm/mm_init.c: In function 'find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes':
>> include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: warning: left shift count is negative
>> [-Wshift-count-negative]
33 | #define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
| ^~
include/linux/math.h:61:25: note: in definition of macro 'roundup'
61 | typeof(y) __y = y; \
| ^
mm/mm_init.c:429:55: note: in expansion of macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
429 | roundup(required_movablecore,
MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES);
|
^~
>> include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: warning: left shift count is negative
>> [-Wshift-count-negative]
33 | #define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
| ^~
include/linux/math.h:61:25: note: in definition of macro 'roundup'
61 | typeof(y) __y = y; \
| ^
mm/mm_init.c:540:56: note: in expansion of macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
540 | roundup(zone_movable_pfn[nid],
MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES);
|
^~
--
In file included from include/linux/gfp.h:7,
from include/linux/mm.h:7,
from mm/debug.c:10:
mm/debug.c: In function '__dump_page':
>> include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: warning: left shift count is negative
>> [-Wshift-count-negative]
33 | #define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
| ^~
mm/debug.c:70:44: note: in expansion of macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
70 | if (page < head || (page >= head + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES)) {
|^~
--
In file included from include/linux/build_bug.h:5,
from include/linux/container_of.h:5,
from include/linux/list.h:5,
from include/linux/smp.h:12,
from include/linux/kernel_stat.h:5,
from mm/memory.c:42:
mm/memory.c: In function 'clear_huge_page':
>> include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: warning: left shift count is negative
>> [-Wshift-count-negative]
33 | #define MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES (1 << MAX_ORDER)
| ^~
include/linux/compiler.h:78:45: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely'
78 | # define unlikely(x)__builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
| ^
mm/memory.c:5791:44: note: in expansion of macro 'MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES'
5791 | if (unlikely(pages_per_huge_page > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES)) {
|^~
mm/memory.c: In function 'copy_user_huge_page':
>> include/linux/mmzone.h:33:31: warning: left shift
Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
On 23 Mar 2023, at 6:37, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15:33AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: >>> From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" >>> >>> 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) >>> --- >>> 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-fb9cff15c...@nvidia.com/ -- Best Regards, Yan, Zi signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15:33AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" > > > > 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) > > --- > > 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.
Re: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" > > 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) > --- > 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
[PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" 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) --- 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" help The kernel memory allocator divides physically contiguous memory -- 2.35.1
