xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: %u-order allocation failed

from [Alex Bligh - linux-kernel] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed
From: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 23:53:18 +0100
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Rusocki <kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011009001720.20446A-100000@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011009001720.20446A-100000@artax.karlin.mff.cuni .cz>
Reply-to: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx


--On Tuesday, 09 October, 2001 12:21 AM +0200 Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If you have more than half of virtual space free, you can always find two
consecutive free pages. Period.


Now calculate the probability of not being able to do this in physical
space, assuming even page dispersion, and many pages free. You will
find it is very small. This may give you a clue as to what the problem
actually is.

--
Alex Bligh


[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: %u-order allocation failed, David Lang
Next by Date:  Re: .deb kernel packages, Gerard W. Patterson
Previous by Thread:  Re: %u-order allocation failed, David Lang
Next by Thread:  Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]