[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: %u-order allocation failed
    > 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.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [W:0.020 / U:1.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site