Re: [RFC] [PATCH v5 0/3] fadvise: support POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/