Re: wierd new config options

[Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:16:44PM -0400, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 20:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Why is UNEVICTABLE_LRU and option?  Is there any rason to turn it off or
> > is this just to confuse users?
> 
> 
> We discussed this back when we first submitted the patches.  I
> considered the NONRECLAIMABLE/UNEVICTABLE LRU mechanism to be a wee bit
> experimental at the time.  I wasn't sure that all platform that do want
> memory management would necessarily also want the unevictable lru.  It's
> easier for me to build it with the option and remove it later than vice
> versa.  If the consensus of the community is that it should always be
> enabled, then I'm fine with removing the option.  

The problem is that average admin can't make useful judgement on
this: active pageout lists -- what the hell is it?, kswapd -- ok, I
remember this process from ps(1) output, "will not waste" -- ok, good
thing, "will use one page flag" -- how many more I have?, what will
happen if they emptied?

And distro kernel maintainer should also make a decision -- not a module, after all.