Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: %u-order allocation failed | Date | Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:13:41 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |