Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof)

[Minchan Kim]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Because we have an alternative solution already. please try memcgroup :)
>>
>> I think memcg could be a solution of them but fundamental solution is
>> that we have to cure it in VM itself.
>> I feel it's absolutely absurd to enable and use memcg for amending it.
>>
>> I wonder what's the problem in Peter's patch 'drop behind'.
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg179576.html
>>
>> Could anyone tell me why it can't accept upstream?
>
> I don't know the reason. And this one looks reasonable to me. I'm curious the above
> patch solve rsync issue or not.
> Minchan, have you tested it yourself?

Still yet. :)
If we all think it's reasonable, it would be valuable to adjust it
with current mmotm and see the effect.

>
>
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/