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>