From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx203.postini.com [74.125.245.203]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98DFB6B006C for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:12:42 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] netvm: Propagate page->pfmemalloc from skb_alloc_page to skb Message-ID: <20120710111242.GD14154@suse.de> References: <1340375443-22455-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1340375443-22455-12-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20120626201328.GI6509@breakpoint.cc> <20120627084348.GG8271@suse.de> <20120709191856.GD3515@breakpoint.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120709191856.GD3515@breakpoint.cc> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , Linux-Netdev , LKML , David Miller , Neil Brown , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Christie , Eric B Munson , Eric Dumazet On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:18:56PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > 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: email@kvack.org