On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:43:48AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
