Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:19:48 +0900 | Subject | Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof) | From | Minchan Kim <> |
| |
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.
> > >
-- Kind regards, Minchan Kim
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |