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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>