Re: dd: fadvise?

[Paul Eggert]

"Leroy van Logchem" <address@hidden> writes:

> +         posix_fadvise(STDOUT_FILENO,0,0,POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
>
> I'am doing so in order to benchmark writing files several times the
> physical memory without invalidating all imported cached pages.

That sounds like such a specialized need that it probably
doesn't need to go into a general-purpose utility like 'dd'.
I can't imagine why an ordinary user would want to use an
I/O buffer size that is bigger than physical memory.  It
kind of defeats the purpose of having a buffer at all, no?