Re: %u-order allocation failed

[Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> It is perfectly OK to have a bit slower access to task_struct with
> probability 1/1000000.

Except that you added a bug where some old driver code would crash the 
machine by doing so.

> Yes, but there are still other dangerous usages of kmalloc and
> __get_free_pages. (The most offending one is in select.c)

Nothing dangeorus there. The -ac vm isnt triggering these cases.

> not abort his operation when it happens. Instead - they are trying to make
> high-order allocations fail less often :-/  How should random
> Joe-driver-developer know, that kmalloc(4096) is safe and kmalloc(4097) is
> not?

4096 is not safe - there is no safe size for a kmalloc, you can always run
out of memory - deal with it.

Alan