Re: %u-order allocation failed

From: Mikulas Patocka (
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 18:31:59 EST

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?


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:21 EST