mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:44:57 +0900 (JST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081211204006.3312.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081211113646.GI23742@kernel.dk>

> On Thu, Dec 11 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > No objection from me, getting rid of configuration options almost
> > > > always gets my vote :)
> > > 
> > > Yeah, mine too. One recent addition was CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU - why on
> > > earth is that an option?!
> > 
> > As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU depend on CONFIG_MMU
> > because any unevictable lru developer don't have nommu machine ;)
> > 
> > I expect that nobody of mmu user don't turn off unevictable lru feature.
> 
> Perhaps I didn't frase the question correctly. My question is, why is it
> a visible option? Does it make ANY sense to turn off
> CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU?

very difficult question...

As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU doesn't have any bad side effect.
So, I expect we can remove UNEVICTABLE_LRU Kconfig option in the future.

but it is _not_ VM developr consensus. just my thinking.




  reply	other threads:[~2008-12-11 11:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-11 10:16 Jean Delvare
2008-12-11 10:41 ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-11 10:58   ` Jean Delvare
2008-12-11 11:08     ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-11 11:33       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-12-11 11:36         ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-11 11:44           ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2008-12-12  7:58             ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-12 13:50               ` Rik van Riel
2008-12-12 15:11                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-12-12 16:01                   ` Hugh Dickins
2008-12-12 16:35                     ` Rik van Riel
2008-12-12 17:37                       ` Hugh Dickins
2008-12-12 18:00                         ` Rik van Riel
2008-12-12 19:26                           ` Hugh Dickins
2008-12-11 12:44       ` Jean Delvare
2008-12-11 12:50         ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-12  7:48           ` Jean Delvare
2008-12-12  7:54             ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-12  9:41               ` Jean Delvare
2008-12-12 18:18                 ` Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081211204006.3312.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®