Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof)

[Minchan Kim]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:28 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.

Maybe Ben, Brian those reports the problem. :)



-- 
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/