>> It doesn't sound like a risky change to me, although perhaps someone is >> depending on the current behaviour for obscure reasons, who knows. >> >> What are the reasons for this change? Is the current behaviour causing >> some sort of problem for someone? > > Yes, one of our generic library does fadvise(FADV_DONTNEED). Recently > we observed high latency in fadvise() and notice that the users have > started using tmpfs files and the latency was due to expensive remote > LRU cache draining. For normal tmpfs files (have data written on > them), fadvise(FADV_DONTNEED) will always trigger the un-needed remote > cache draining. > Hi Andrew, do you have more comments or concerns? >> >> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
