Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof)

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> 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.

Who can make rsync like io pattern test suite? a code change is easy. but
to comfirm justification is more harder work.



--
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/