On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:12:37 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> 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? > > It's a little saving of text footprint. ÂIt's also probably faster this way - > putting all the pages into a pagevec then later processing them won't > be very L1 cache friendly. > > I am not sure how much effective it is in UP. But if L1 cache friendly is important concern, we should not use per-cpu about hot operation. I think more important thing in embedded (normal UP), it is a lock latency. I don't want to hold/release the lock per page. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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