xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: %u-order allocation failed

To: mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed
From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:13:41 +0100 (BST)
Cc: anton@xxxxxxxxx (Anton Blanchard), riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rik van Riel), kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Krzysztof Rusocki), linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011006203014.7808A-100000@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> from "Mikulas Patocka" at Oct 06, 2001 09:07:31 PM
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> It is perfectly OK to have a bit slower access to task_struct with
> probability 1/1000000.

Except that you added a bug where some old driver code would crash the 
machine by doing so.

> Yes, but there are still other dangerous usages of kmalloc and
> __get_free_pages. (The most offending one is in select.c)

Nothing dangeorus there. The -ac vm isnt triggering these cases.

> not abort his operation when it happens. Instead - they are trying to make
> high-order allocations fail less often :-/  How should random
> Joe-driver-developer know, that kmalloc(4096) is safe and kmalloc(4097) is
> not?

4096 is not safe - there is no safe size for a kmalloc, you can always run
out of memory - deal with it.

Alan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>