From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8423E6B0047 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:34:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by yxk8 with SMTP id 8so2795180yxk.14 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:34:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100928131056.509118201@linux.com> References: <20100928131025.319846721@linux.com> <20100928131056.509118201@linux.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:34:30 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Slub cleanup5 1/3] slub: reduce differences between SMP and NUMA From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes List-ID: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Reduce the #ifdefs and simplify bootstrap by making SMP and NUMA as much alike > as possible. This means that there will be an additional indirection to get to > the kmem_cache_node field under SMP. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter I'm slightly confused. What does SMP have to do with this? Isn't this simply NUMA vs UMA thing regardless whether its UP or SMP? -- 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