xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: %u-order allocation failed

To: torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed
From: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:31:59 +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: <653073165.1002585197@[195.224.237.69]>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel wrote:

> --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.

My patch is not providing "very small probability". It is providing _zero_
probability that fork fails. (assiming that there is more than half
vmalloc space free).

I'm just tired of this stupid flamewar. 

Linus, what do you think: is it OK if fork randomly fails with very small
probability or not?

Are you going to accept patch that maps task_struct into virtual space if
buddy allocator fails or not? 

Mikulas


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