[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:0.019 / U:5.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site