Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751926Ab0KNFJe (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:09:34 -0500 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:44890 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750708Ab0KNFJc (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:09:32 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Ben Gamari Subject: Re: fadvise DONTNEED implementation (or lack thereof) Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rsync@lists.samba.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: <877hgmr72o.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20101109162525.BC87.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <877hgmr72o.fsf@gmail.com> Message-Id: <20101114140920.E013.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:09:29 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1864 Lines: 34 > On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:28:02 +0900 (JST), KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > So, I don't think application developers will use fadvise() aggressively > > because we don't have a cross platform agreement of a fadvice behavior. > > > I strongly disagree. For a long time I have been trying to resolve > interactivity issues caused by my rsync-based backup script. Many kernel > developers have said that there is nothing the kernel can do without > more information from user-space (e.g. cgroups, madvise). While cgroups > help, the fix is round-about at best and requires configuration where > really none should be necessary. The easiest solution for everyone > involved would be for rsync to use FADV_DONTNEED. The behavior doesn't > need to be perfectly consistent between platforms for the flag to be > useful so long as each implementation does something sane to help > use-once access patterns. > > People seem to mention frequently that there are no users of > FADV_DONTNEED and therefore we don't need to implement it. It seems like > this is ignoring an obvious catch-22. Currently rsync has no fadvise > support at all, since using[1] the implemented hints to get the desired > effect is far too complicated^M^M^M^Mhacky to be considered > merge-worthy. Considering the number of Google hits returned for > fadvise, I wouldn't be surprised if there were countless other projects > with this same difficulty. We want to be able to tell the kernel about > our useage patterns, but the kernel won't listen. Because we have an alternative solution already. please try memcgroup :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/