From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:16:37 -0400 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [-mm][PATCH 1/10] fix UNEVICTABLE_LRU and !PROC_PAGE_MONITOR build Message-ID: <20080703091637.5fcb0308@bree.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <20080703145454.B963.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20080625185950.D84F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080702223652.3b57dc4b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080703145454.B963.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm , Lee Schermerhorn , Benjamin Kidwell List-ID: On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:02:23 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > config UNEVICTABLE_LRU > > > bool "Add LRU list to track non-evictable pages" > > > default y > > > + select PAGE_WALKER > > > > So what do we do? Make UNEVICTABLE_LRU depend on CONFIG_MMU? That > > would be even worse than what we have now. > > I'm not sure about what do we do. but I'd prefer "depends on MMU". > because current munlock implementation need pagewalker. > So, munlock rewriting have high risk rather than change depend on. > > Rik, What do you think? I suspect that systems without an MMU will not run into page replacement scalability issues, so making the UNEVICTABLE_LRU config option depend on MMU should be ok. -- All rights reversed. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org