[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 Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<> wrote:
>> On Tue,  9 Nov 2010 16:28:02 +0900 (JST), KOSAKI Motohiro <> wrote:
>> > So, I don't think application developers will use fadvise() aggressively
>> > because we don't have a cross platform agreement of a fadvice behavior.
>> >
>> I strongly disagree. For a long time I have been trying to resolve
>> interactivity issues caused by my rsync-based backup script. Many kernel
>> developers have said that there is nothing the kernel can do without
>> more information from user-space (e.g. cgroups, madvise). While cgroups
>> help, the fix is round-about at best and requires configuration where
>> really none should be necessary. The easiest solution for everyone
>> involved would be for rsync to use FADV_DONTNEED. The behavior doesn't
>> need to be perfectly consistent between platforms for the flag to be
>> useful so long as each implementation does something sane to help
>> use-once access patterns.
>> People seem to mention frequently that there are no users of
>> FADV_DONTNEED and therefore we don't need to implement it. It seems like
>> this is ignoring an obvious catch-22. Currently rsync has no fadvise
>> support at all, since using[1] the implemented hints to get the desired
>> effect is far too complicated^M^M^M^Mhacky to be considered
>> merge-worthy. Considering the number of Google hits returned for
>> fadvise, I wouldn't be surprised if there were countless other projects
>> with this same difficulty. We want to be able to tell the kernel about
>> our useage patterns, but the kernel won't listen.
> 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?

Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-15 07:11    [W:0.074 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site