From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] slob: poor man's NUMA support. In-Reply-To: <20070626002131.ff3518d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070619090616.GA23697@linux-sh.org> <20070626002131.ff3518d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Paul Mundt , Matt Mackall , Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > > + if (node != -1) > > + page = alloc_pages_node(node, gfp, order); > > + else > > +#endif > > + page = alloc_pages(gfp, order); > > Isn't the above equivalent to a bare > > page = alloc_pages_node(node, gfp, order); > > ? No. alloc_pages follows memory policy. alloc_pages_node does not. One of the reasons that I want a new memory policy layer are these kinds of strange uses. > > if (node < 0 > > rather than comparing with -1 exactly. > > On many CPUs it'll save a few bytes of code. -1 means no node specified and much of the NUMA code compares with -1. -- 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