| To: | Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: %u-order allocation failed |
| From: | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:48:30 -0700 (PDT) |
| 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.3.96.1011009010928.13677A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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.
Linus
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka |
| 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] |