New: Outdated documentation on posix_fadvise?
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95421
Bug ID: 95421
Summary: Outdated documentation on posix_fadvise?
Product: Documentation
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: man-pages
Assignee: documentation_man-pages-ztI5WcYan/[email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Regression: No
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/posix_fadvise.2.html suggests that POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED has no effect on dirty pages. However, if I'm reading
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/mm/fadvise.c?id=v3.19#n115
correctly, it will in fact schedule dirty pages for writeout if the underlying device is not already congested.
Can you please verify actual behavior and update the manpage if indicated?
Signature · 6 lines
You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Bug 95421] Outdated documentation on posix_fadvise?
In reply to a message not in the archivehttps://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95421
Michael Kerrisk <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[email protected]
--- Comment #1 from Michael Kerrisk <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Maik Zumstrull from comment #0)
Quoted 2 lines
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/posix_fadvise.2.html suggests that
POSIX_FADV_DONTNEEDhas no effect on dirty pages.
I'm missing something. Where does the page suggest that?
Signature · 6 lines
You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Bug 95421] Outdated documentation on posix_fadvise?
In reply to a message not in the archivehttps://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95421
--- Comment #2 from Maik Zumstrull <[email protected]> --- Last paragraph under NOTES. "Pages that have not yet been written out will be unaffected, so if the application wishes to guarantee that pages will be released, it should call fsync(2) or fdatasync(2) first."
Unless I'm misreading the code, this is not true.
Signature · 6 lines
You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html