Re: [PATCH 29/33] autonuma: page_autonuma

2012-10-05 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
Hi Christoph, On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:11:51PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I did not say anything like that. Still not convinced that autonuma is > worth doing and that it is beneficial given the complexity it adds to the > kernel. Just wanted to point out that there is a case to be made f

Re: [PATCH 29/33] autonuma: page_autonuma

2012-10-04 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > If you mean CONFIG_AUTONUMA=y should select (not depend) on > CONFIG_HAVE_ALIGNED_STRUCT_PAGE, that would allow to enable it in all > .configs but it would have a worse cons: losing 8bytes per page > unconditionally (even when booting on non-NUMA hardw

Re: [PATCH 29/33] autonuma: page_autonuma

2012-10-04 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
Hi Christoph, On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 06:17:37PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > So we could drop page_autonuma by creating a CONFIG_SLUB=y dependency > > (AUTONUMA wouldn't be available in the kernel config if SLAB=y, and it > > also wouldn't b