On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:32 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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. I am keen in binary size but at least in this case, the benefit isn't big, I think. I hope we would care of code cleanness and latency of irq than memory footprint in this time. > > Thanks. > > > -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>