[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705291133380.24473@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Allow CONFIG_MIGRATION to be set without CONFIG_NUMA
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > +config SYSCALL_MOVE_PAGES
> > > + def_bool y
> > > + depends on MIGRATION && NUMA
> > > +
> >
> > Do we really need the CONFIG_SYSCALL_MOVE_PAGES? I think you will directly
> > access the lower levels. So why have it? CONFIG_SYSCALL_MOVE_PAGES ==
> > CONFIG_NUMA.
>
> Without SYSCALL_MOVE_PAGES, the check in migrate.h becomes
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_NUMA) && defined(CONFIG_MIGRATION)
> /* Check if a vma is migratable */
> static inline int vma_migratable(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> #endif
Why do you need vma_migratable for the CONFIG_MIGRATION case? The use of
vma_migratable in a !NUMA sitation would not be working right as far as I
can tell.
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
is fine.
> That in itself is fine but in mm/migrate.c I didn't want to define
> sys_move_pages() in the non-NUMA case. Whatever about the header file where
> SYSCALL_MOVE_PAGES obscures understanding, I think it makes sense to have
> SYSCALL_MOVE_PAGES for mm/migrate.c . What do you think?
Why do you need sys_move_pages for the non-NUMA case?
The low level function that I intended to be used by defrag is
migrate_pages and that one is outside of #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists