On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:18:56PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

quoted

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?

For now, I'd prefer to keep the __GFP_MEMALLOC flag at the different
callsites because it forces people to think about what it means.  I fear
that GFP_NET_RX may be too easy to misuse without thinking about what the
consequences are.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

--
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>