Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] fadvise: implement POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE

[Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:10:28PM -0800, Arun Sharma wrote:
> On 2/15/12 4:56 PM, Andrea Righi wrote:
> 
> >Oh sorry, you're right! nocache_tree is not a pointer inside
> >address_space, so the compiler must know the size.
> >
> >mmh... move the definition of the rb_root struct in linux/types.h? or
> >simply use a rb_root pointer. The (void *) looks a bit scary and too bug
> >prone.
> 
> Either way is fine. I did some black box testing of the patch
> (comparing noreuse vs dontneed) and it behaves as expected.
> 
> On a file copy, neither one pollutes the page cache. But if I run a
> random read benchmark on the source file right before and
> afterwards, page cache is warm with noreuse, but cold with dontneed.
> Copy performance was unaffected.
> 
> I can't really comment on the implementation details since I haven't
> reviewed it, but the functionality sounds useful.
> 
>  -Arun

Arun, thank you very much for your review and testing. Probably we'll
move to a different, memcg-based solution, so I don't think I'll post
another version of this patch set as is. In case, I'll apply one of
the workarounds for the rb_root attribute.

Thanks,
-Andrea

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>