Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:12:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:12:13 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:41974 "HELO burns.conectiva") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:12:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:03:49 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel To: Mike Galbraith cc: David Shoon , linux-kernel , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uka.redhat.com, MOLNAR Ingo Subject: Re: system hang with "__alloc_page: 1-order allocation failed" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > (A workaround is to lower max_threads to 25% of memory.. works, but is > really cheezy. OTOH, allowing half of memory to be allocated in task > structs is a bit cheezy looking too. That means that these tasks > can't be big enough to be doing real work.. no?) If half of memory is allocated for task structures, we won't even be able to allocate the minimum number of page table pages needed for each task ... For a "normal" task we'll need at least 1 page directory and 3 page table pages. We only have space for half when the maximum number of task_struct's is allocated. Maybe it would be good to lower the default threads-max to about 10% or less of physical memory ? regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ - 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/