[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fork() failing

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
> > There are also some platforms using 1-order allocations
> > for page tables as well.
> >
> > But I don't know if I agree with this special casing.
> Well, it's not really any _new_ special casing - we've always had the
> special case for order-0, the patch just expands it to order-1 too.
> That said, I think a separate flag saying "don't try too hard", which can
> be used for all orders, including 0 and 1, and just says that "ok, we want
> you to balance things, but if this allocation fails that's not a big
> deal".
> So the flag would just always be implicit in allocations of higher orders,
> because big orders are basically impossible to guarantee..

Read my last mail on this thread... A single flag saying "we can fail
easily" does not sound good to me.

Imagine people changing the point where the

if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FAIL))

check is done (inside the freeing routines).

I would like to have a _defined_ meaning for a "fail easily" allocation,
and a simple unique __GFP_FAIL flag can't give us that IMO.

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 13:08    [W:0.053 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site