From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6954C6FD1D for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232665AbjCOPft (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:35:49 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48264 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232660AbjCOPff (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:35:35 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5922A5FA49; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1678894532; x=1710430532; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XVCvNq00AzxeDiW1CII0hPanv823+0JJywCY93Le2ww=; b=H/rQgEV1cIk28+BLMd7HcT5xVTZjh7kj0PhTFG962CtyTQwkUCo0IJ7R 7xxC59OwwsaVCurCiq24MzIuurFUhe+t462/QxnyQmc+LuKDLK6T3nF4h HXBG1svPrf85FWavUpmwmV8P1mHJpxYurv5AmyoXjqOyR8QJILl60T9Tc rP1w3HUWe8v5RkAWGZ8b6nGmIvPxXwsFwAiV/3yQDicNO4aMZjg5udxhl gzcNDJXy5ZdjZhBf8ZANSi4phsPE949K96L35WndJsYnE3jgC9FBnMo10 D7CxLloq0KGZl7maNK9zu2iDJ8hzIOCe/IeCzZvy0Z1aT9nVfXe/VqTDB g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10650"; a="365422302" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.98,262,1673942400"; d="scan'208";a="365422302" Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2023 08:35:30 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10650"; a="1008877812" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.98,262,1673942400"; d="scan'208";a="1008877812" Received: from rhdahlex-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.59.168]) ([10.212.59.168]) by fmsmga005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2023 08:35:25 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:35:23 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] drm/i915: Fix MAX_ORDER usage in i915_gem_object_get_pages_internal() Content-Language: en-US To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , David Hildenbrand , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jani Nikula , Joonas Lahtinen , Rodrigo Vivi References: <20230315113133.11326-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20230315113133.11326-5-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <7fe9a4a0-9b30-38db-e739-1dc1f7a8f74e@linux.intel.com> <20230315152802.gr2olzji5zhu6vdo@box> From: Tvrtko Ursulin Organization: Intel Corporation UK Plc In-Reply-To: <20230315152802.gr2olzji5zhu6vdo@box> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On 15/03/2023 15:28, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:18:52PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> >> On 15/03/2023 11:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>> MAX_ORDER is not inclusive: the maximum allocation order buddy allocator >>> can deliver is MAX_ORDER-1. >> >> This looks to be true on inspection: >> >> __alloc_pages(): >> .. >> if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(order >= MAX_ORDER, gfp)) >> >> So a bit of a misleading name "max".. For the i915 patch: >> >> Acked-by: Tvrtko Ursulin >> >> I don't however see the whole series to understand the context, or how you >> want to handle the individual patches. Is it a tree wide cleanup of the same >> mistake? > > The whole patchset can be seen here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230315113133.11326-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com/ > > The idea is to fix all MAX_ORDER bugs first and then re-define MAX_ORDER > more sensibly. Sounds good. Would you like i915 to take this patch or you will be bringing the whole lot via some other route? Former is okay and latter should also be fine for i915 since I don't envisage any conflicts here. Regards, Tvrtko