lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof)
Date
> 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.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-15 08:31    [W:0.069 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site