| To: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: %u-order allocation failed |
| From: | Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:46:52 +0200 (CEST) |
| Cc: | torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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: | <E15qk40-0002Jf-00@the-village.bc.nu> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > 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 I asked Linus, not you :-/ It's up to him, if he wants "stability-based-on-probability" algorithms in Linux or not. Mikulas |
| Previous by Date: | Re: TAKE - Improvement request for xfsdump/xfsrestore exit codes, Bernhard R. Erdmann |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Linus Torvalds |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Alan Cox |
| Next by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Linus Torvalds |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |