Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Minchan Kim
Date: Sunday, November 14, 2010 - 11:07 pm

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

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?

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Ben Gamari, (Wed Nov 3, 10:58 pm)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), KOSAKI Motohiro, (Tue Nov 9, 12:28 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), KOSAKI Motohiro, (Tue Nov 9, 1:03 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), KOSAKI Motohiro, (Sat Nov 13, 10:09 pm)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Ben Gamari, (Sat Nov 13, 10:20 pm)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Brian K. White, (Sun Nov 14, 2:33 pm)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Sun Nov 14, 11:07 pm)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), KOSAKI Motohiro, (Mon Nov 15, 12:09 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Mon Nov 15, 12:19 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), KOSAKI Motohiro, (Mon Nov 15, 12:28 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Mon Nov 15, 12:46 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Nov 15, 1:47 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Mon Nov 15, 2:05 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), KOSAKI Motohiro, (Mon Nov 15, 2:10 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Rik van Riel, (Mon Nov 15, 7:48 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Wed Nov 17, 3:16 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Wed Nov 17, 4:15 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Rik van Riel, (Wed Nov 17, 9:22 am)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Wed Nov 17, 7:47 pm)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Rik van Riel, (Wed Nov 17, 8:24 pm)
Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof), Minchan Kim, (Wed Nov 17, 8:46 pm)