Anyone have any comments? Or historical reasons? We operate with some constrained memory situations, and were wondering if a patch to move from kmalloc to vmalloc would be well received. mrubin On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've been running various tests of ext4 partitions lately, and have > found that with very low memory situations, I'm getting intermittent > mount failures due to ENOMEM from ext4_mb_init() and > ext4_fill_flex_info() . Here's a typical dmesg from the latter: > > EXT4-fs: not enough memory for 8198 flex groups > EXT4-fs: unable to initialize flex_bg meta info! > > This is from a kzalloc() call of size ~64k . I think the > ext4_mb_init() calls to kmalloc() and alloc_percpu() are even smaller. > > I was wondering why all the code in ext4 (and ext[23], for that > matter) uses kmalloc() and friends instead of vmalloc(), at least > where it's safe; is it just for performance reasons? > > I've seen the above errors when I do a mount -a, causing several > partitions to be mounted; I can usually mount the failed ones by hand > right afterwards, but this is a big difference for us, in our > environment, compared to, say, ext2 partitions. > > Thanks, > Curt > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html