> >> Why do we need CONFIG_SMP in only activate_page_pvecs? > >> The per-cpu of activate_page_pvecs consumes lots of memory in UP? > >> I don't think so. But if it consumes lots of memory, it's a problem > >> of per-cpu. > > No, not too much memory. > > > >> I can't understand why we should hanlde activate_page_pvecs specially. > >> Please, enlighten me. > > Not it's special. akpm asked me to do it this time. Reducing little > > memory is still worthy anyway, so that's it. We can do it for other > > pvecs too, in separate patch. > > Understandable but I don't like code separation by CONFIG_SMP for just > little bit enhance of memory usage. In future, whenever we use percpu, > do we have to implement each functions for both SMP and non-SMP? > Is it desirable? > Andrew, Is it really valuable? > > If everybody agree, I don't oppose such way. > But now I vote code cleanness than reduce memory footprint. FWIW, The ifdef was added for embedded concern. and I believe you are familiar with modern embedded trend than me. then, I have no objection to remove it if you don't need it. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>