lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromDavid Howells <>
SubjectRe: [patch 1/3] mm: decouple unevictable lru from mmu
DateMon, 23 Mar 2009 10:48:25 +0000
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-23 11:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2010