From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4ECE66B004F for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n2C20ML8030915 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:00:23 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A808245DD74 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:00:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870B845DD72 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:00:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E47E08004 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:00:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299D9E08002 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:00:22 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] NOMMU: Pages allocated to a ramfs inode's pagecache may get wrongly discarded In-Reply-To: <20090312105226.88df3f63.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> References: <20090312100049.43A3.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090312105226.88df3f63.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> Message-Id: <20090312105622.43A6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:00:18 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, Enrik.Berkhan@ge.com, uclinux-dev@uclinux.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Rik van Riel , Lee Schermerhorn List-ID: > Hi, Kosaki-san. > > I think ramfs pages's unevictablility should not depend on CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU. > It would be better to remove dependency of CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU ? > > How about this ? > It's just RFC. It's not tested. > > That's because we can't reclaim that pages regardless of whether there is unevictable list or not maybe, your patch work. but we can remove CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU build option itself completely after nommu folks confirmed CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU works well on their machine it is more cleaner IMHO. What do you think? -- 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