>> 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? >> >>
