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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>