On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:35:24 +0100 Andrea Righi <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:22:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:59:22 +0100 > > Andrea Righi <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 01:33:37PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:21:35 +0100 > > > > Andrea Righi <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > And yes, a container-based approach is pretty crude, and one can > > > > envision applications which only want modified reclaim policy for one > > > > particualr file. But I suspect an application-wide reclaim policy > > > > solves 90% of the problems. > > > > > > I really like the container-based approach. But for this we need a > > > better file cache control in the memory cgroup; now we have the > > > accounting of file pages, but there's no way to limit them. > > > > Again, if/whem memcg becomes sufficiently useful for this application > > we're left maintaining the obsolete POSIX_FADVISE_NOREUSE for ever. > > Yes, totally agree. For the future a memcg-based solution is probably > the best way to go. > > This reminds me to the old per-memcg dirty memory discussion > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/67114), cc'ing Greg. > > Maybe the generic feature to provide that could solve both problems is > a better file cache isolation in memcg. > Can you think of example interface for us ? I'd like to discuss this in mm-summit if we have a chance. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
