Re: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x20

[Nick Piggin]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 12:25, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > | # free
> > > |              total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
> > > | Mem:         10260       9844        416          0        240       5004
> > > | -/+ buffers/cache:       4600       5660
> > > | Swap:        33256       3796      29460
> >
> > Not even atomic allocations memory are allowed to consume all memory.
> > A small amount is reserved for memory freeing (which sometimes
> > requires initial memory allocations).
> >
> > The message should be harmless.
>
>
> Since atomic allocations by definition need to be able to cope with
> failure, how about a patch like this to not warn for this common and
> legit case?

CC'ed Andrew: I think it's his baby.

I guess we're at the point where we should quiet down things like
this. Although order-0 atomic allocation failures are pretty rare,
I'd consider leaving them in. Maybe a CONFIG option?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/