Messages in this thread |  | | | From | David Howells <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 1/3] mm: decouple unevictable lru from mmu | | Date | Mon, 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
|  |