lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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.

Sorry, but it can be triggered by _ANY_ VM since buddy allocator was
introduced. You have no guarantee, that you find two or more consecutive
free pages. And if you don't, poll() fails.

> > 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.

This is not about running out of memory. It is about free space
fragmentation. Think this:

You have no swap.
Program allocates one file cache page, one anon page, one cache page, one
anon page and so on. The memory will look like:

cache page
anon page
cache page
anon page
cache page
anon page
etc.

Now some driver wants to allocate 4097 and it CAN'T. Even when there's
half memory free.

Mikulas


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site