| To: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: %u-order allocation failed |
| From: | Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:21:04 +0200 (CEST) |
| Cc: | Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Rusocki <kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <E15qLzV-00071D-00@the-village.bc.nu> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > The difference between memory and vmalloc space is this: you fill up the > > whole memory with cache => memory fragments. You don't fill up the whole > > vmalloc space with anything => vmalloc space doesn't fragment. > > vmalloc space fragments. You fragment address space rather than pages thats > all. Same problem If you have more than half of virtual space free, you can always find two consecutive free pages. Period. You can fill up half of virtual space if you start 4096 processes or load many modules of total size 32M. Is it clear? Do you realize that no one will ever hit this limit in typical linux configuration? Mikulas |
| Previous by Date: | RE: 2.4.10-pre13-xfs Unresolved symbols in pagebuf.o, Seth Mos |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, David Lang |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel |
| Next by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, David Lang |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |