netdev - Re: [PATCH 11/16] netvm: Propagate page->pfmemalloc from skb_alloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120709191856.GD3515@breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:18:56 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux-Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] netvm: Propagate page->pfmemalloc from
 skb_alloc_page to skb

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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html