From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:24:09 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 Message-Id: <20051031112409.153e7048.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <27700000.1130769270@[10.10.2.4]> References: <20051030183354.22266.42795.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> <20051031055725.GA3820@w-mikek2.ibm.com> <4365BBC4.2090906@yahoo.com.au> <20051030235440.6938a0e9.akpm@osdl.org> <27700000.1130769270@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, kravetz@us.ibm.com, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > To me, the question is "do we support higher order allocations, or not?". > Pretending we do, making a half-assed job of it, and then it not working > well under pressure is not helping anyone. I'm told, for instance, that > AMD64 requires > 4K stacks - that's pretty fundamental, as just one > instance. I'd rather make Linux pretty bulletproof - the added feature > stuff is just a bonus that comes for free with that. Well... stacks are allocated with GFP_KERNEL, so we're reliable there. It's the GFP_ATOMIC higher-order allocations which fail, and networking copes with that. I suspect this would all be a non-issue if the net drivers were using __GFP_NOWARN ;) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org