From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB0F8D003A for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:28:34 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v4]mm: batch activate_page() to reduce lock contention Message-Id: <20110314192834.8ffeda55.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1299735019.2337.63.camel@sli10-conroe> <20110314144540.GC11699@barrios-desktop> <1300154014.2337.74.camel@sli10-conroe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: Shaohua Li , linux-mm , Andi Kleen , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , mel , Johannes Weiner On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:12:37 +0900 Minchan Kim wrote: > >> 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? It's a little saving of text footprint. It's also probably faster this way - putting all the pages into a pagevec then later processing them won't be very L1 cache friendly. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org