From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F8FE6B0047 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:43:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [Slub cleanup5 1/3] slub: reduce differences between SMP and NUMA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100928131025.319846721@linux.com> <20100928131056.509118201@linux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes List-ID: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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? Right. But then UMA / UP is a rare config that I have only ever seen working on IA64. -- 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