[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mm: fadvise: avoid fadvise for fs without backing device
>> 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?


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-23 02:25    [W:0.055 / U:3.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site