> > I don't like this change because fadvise(DONT_NEED) is rarely used > > function and this PG_reclaim trick doesn't improve so much. In the > > other hand, It increase VM state mess. > > > > Can we please stop appealing to this argument? The reason that > fadvise(DONT_NEED) is currently rarely employed is that the interface as > implemented now is extremely kludgey to use. > > Are you proposing that this particular implementation is not worth the > mess (as opposed to putting the pages at the head of the inactive list > as done earlier) or would you rather that we simply leave DONT_NEED in > its current state? Even if today's gains aren't as great as we would > like them to be, we should still make an effort to make fadvise() > usable, if for no other reason than to encourage use in user-space so > that applications can benefit when we finally do figure out how to > properly account for the user's hints. Hi I'm not againt DONT_NEED feature. I only said PG_reclaim trick is not so effective. Every feature has their own pros/cons. I think the cons is too big. Also, nobody have mesured PG_reclaim performance gain. Did you? -- 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>