[PATCH 0/2] Improve documentation of FADV_DONTNEED behaviour
From: Mel Gorman
Date: Tue Dec 02 2014 - 19:42:55 EST
Partial page discard requests are ignored and the documentation on why this
is correct behaviour sucks. A readahead patch looked like a "regression" to
a random IO storage benchmark because posix_fadvise() was used incorrectly
to force IO requests to go to disk. In reality, the benchmark sucked but
it was non-obvious why. Patch 1 updates the kernel comment in case someone
"fixes" either readahead or fadvise for inappropriate reasons. Patch 2
updates the relevant man page on the rough off chance that application
developers do not read kernel source comments.
--
2.1.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/