| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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. Mikulas |
| Previous by Date: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Linus Torvalds |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TAKE - Improvement request for xfsdump/xfsrestore exit codes, Andrew Gildfind |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Linus Torvalds |
| Next by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Rik van Riel |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |