[Top] [All Lists]

Re: %u-order allocation failed

To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed
From: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:54:49 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Rusocki <kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110081647550.1064-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > Linus, what do you think: is it OK if fork randomly fails with very small
> > probability or not?
> I've never seen it, I've never heard it reported, and I _know_ that
> vmalloc() causes slowdowns.
> In short, I'm not switching to a vmalloc() fork.

The patch uses buddy by default and does vmalloc only if buddy fails.
Slowdown is not an issue here.


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