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

Re: %u-order allocation failed

from [Alan Cox] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mikulas Patocka)
Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed
From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:44:00 +0100 (BST)
Cc: torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Cox), riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rik van Riel), linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx (Alex Bligh - linux-kernel), kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Krzysztof Rusocki), linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011009010928.13677A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Mikulas Patocka" at Oct 09, 2001 01:31:59 AM
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> Linus, what do you think: is it OK if fork randomly fails with very small
> probability or not?

Your code doesnt change that behaviour. Not one iota. Do the mathematics,
work out the failure probabilities for page pairs. Now remember that the
vmalloc one has guard pages too.

You are trying to solve a non problem with a non solution

Alan
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka
Next by Date:  Re: TAKE - Improvement request for xfsdump/xfsrestore exit codes, Bernhard R. Erdmann
Previous by Thread:  Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka
Next by Thread:  Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]