From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mB74hGSa026880 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:43:16 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667B445DD7B for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:43:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E8845DD78 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:43:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDA61DB8038 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:43:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77E21DB8037 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:43:15 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug: run lru_add_drain_all() on each cpu In-Reply-To: <1228509818.12681.21.camel@nimitz> References: <1228482500.8392.15.camel@t60p> <1228509818.12681.21.camel@nimitz> Message-Id: <20081207133450.53D8.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:43:14 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen , Lee Schermerhorn Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com, npiggin@suse.de List-ID: CC to Lee Schermerhorn > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 14:08 +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote: > > > > As explained above, the per-cpu pagevec layout should be independent > > from NUMA or UNEVICTABLE_LRU, so I guess the right thing to do here > > is completely remove the #ifdef as in the patch from Kosaki Motohiro > > (or at least replace it with a CONFIG_SMP as suggested by Kamezawa > > Hiroyuki). > > Thanks for looking into it deeper. That CONFIG_SMP thing really does > look like the right solution. Lee, Could you read this thread and explain why you add ifdef CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU? I am not sure about that Dave's proposal is safe change. (but I guess he is right) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org