[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:3.405 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site