> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro > <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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. Who can make rsync like io pattern test suite? a code change is easy. but to comfirm justification is more harder work. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>