Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof) | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:28:32 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro > <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> 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@vger.kernel.org/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.
| |