Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:31:59 +0200 (CEST) | From | Mikulas Patocka <> | Subject | Re: %u-order allocation failed |
| |
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel wrote:
> --On Tuesday, 09 October, 2001 12:21 AM +0200 Mikulas Patocka > <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote: > > > If you have more than half of virtual space free, you can always find two > > consecutive free pages. Period. > > Now calculate the probability of not being able to do this in physical > space, assuming even page dispersion, and many pages free. You will > find it is very small. This may give you a clue as to what the problem > actually is.
My patch is not providing "very small probability". It is providing _zero_ probability that fork fails. (assiming that there is more than half vmalloc space free).
I'm just tired of this stupid flamewar.
Linus, what do you think: is it OK if fork randomly fails with very small probability or not?
Are you going to accept patch that maps task_struct into virtual space if buddy allocator fails or not?
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/
|  |