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

Nick Piggin
2004-06-20T10:54:46Z

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?