Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] slob: poor man's NUMA support. |
| |
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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |