[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12087.1237805305@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:48:25 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.com>,
MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] mm: decouple unevictable lru from mmu
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> David, why do we need two Kconfig symbols for mlock and the mlock page
> bit? Don't we always provide mlock on mmu and never on nommu?
Because whilst the PG_mlocked doesn't exist if we don't have mlock() because
we're in NOMMU mode, that does not imply that it _does_ exist if we _do_ have
mlock() as it's also contingent on having the unevictable LRU.
Not only that, CONFIG_HAVE_MLOCK used in mm/internal.h to switch some stuff
out based on whether we have mlock() available or not - which is not the same
as whether we have PG_mlocked or not.
Mainly I thought it made the train of logic easier.
Note that neither symbol is actually manually adjustable.
David
--
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