[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof)
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<> 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'.
>> 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-15 08:23    [W:0.119 / U:1.416 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site