On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:43:48AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:

quoted

You did not touch all drivers which use alloc_page(s)() like e1000(e). Was
this on purpose?

Yes. The ones I changed were the semi-obvious ones and carried over from
when the patches were completely out of tree.  As the changelog notes
it is not critical that these annotation happens and can be fixed on a
per-driver basis if there are complains about network swapping being slow.

okay, I was just curious why some drivers were updated and others not.

I can update e1000 if you like but it's not critical
to do so and in fact getting a bug reporting saying that network swap
was slow on e1000 would be useful to me in its own way :)

No, leave as it, I was just curious.
One thing: Do you think it makes sense to you introduce
	#define GFP_NET_RX     (GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_MEMALLOC)

and use it within the receive path instead of GFP_ATOMIC?

Sebastian

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>