From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754329Ab2GNRD2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:03:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15899 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752313Ab2GNRDV (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:03:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:01:42 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Johannes Weiner , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Hillf Danton , Dan Smith , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , Suresh Siddha , Mike Galbraith , "Paul E. McKenney" , Lai Jiangshan , Bharata B Rao , Lee Schermerhorn , Rik van Riel , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Alex Shi , Mauricio Faria de Oliveira , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Don Morris , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/40] autonuma: alloc/free/init mm_autonuma Message-ID: <20120714170142.GW10186@redhat.com> References: <1340888180-15355-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> <1340888180-15355-21-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> <20120630051217.GG3975@localhost.localdomain> <20120712180828.GL20382@redhat.com> <20120712181738.GA1349@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:19:06AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 08:08:28PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 01:12:18AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:56:00PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > This is where the mm_autonuma structure is being handled. Just like > > > > > sched_autonuma, this is only allocated at runtime if the hardware the > > > > > kernel is running on has been detected as NUMA. On not NUMA hardware > > > > > > > > I think the correct wording is "non-NUMA", not "not NUMA". > > > > > > That sounds far too easy to me, but I've no idea what's the right is here. > > > > UMA? > > > > Single-node hardware? > > Lets be simple and stay with non-NUMA. Ok, I already corrected all occurrences. Thanks.