Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:32:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:32:23 -0400 Received: from artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.125]:30726 "EHLO artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:32:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:31:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikulas Patocka To: torvalds@transmeta.com cc: Alan Cox , Rik van Riel , Alex Bligh - linux-kernel , Krzysztof Rusocki , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed In-Reply-To: <653073165.1002585197@[195.224.237.69]> 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 Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel wrote: > --On Tuesday, 09 October, 2001 12:21 AM +0200 Mikulas Patocka > 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/