__alloc_pages_
Dear listmembers,
some googling and some tests brought the following results:
1.) according to a discussion back in 2001 between some people on the linux kernel mailing list those messages are in a way "normal" i.e. should be expected to occur.
2.) on the other hand I cannot understand (because the explanation is missing there) that a entirely unloaded system with 512 MB of RAM and 2 GB of swap emits such messages.
3.) I have seen those messages only on my U60 SMP and only when accessing the SCSI-subsystem (Scanner or cd/dvdrecorder via cdrecord / saned.
Does anyone know a pointer to some documentation where to get a better understanding why such issues can happen? I am still afraid there is some hidden issue behind that I only haven't uncovered yet.
Unfortunately ksymoops is useless because it does not yield any output - because usually the machine does not OOPS but only says "__alloc_pages_ failure at XXX".
Many thanks in advance,
take care
Dieter Jurzitza
--
________________________________________________
HARMAN BECKER AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
Dr.-Ing. Dieter Jurzitza
Manager Hardware Systems
System Development
Industriegebiet Ittersbach
Becker-Göring Str. 16
D-76307 Karlsbad / Germany
Phone: +49 (0)7248 71-1577
Fax: +49 (0)7248 71-1216
eMail: DJurzitza@harmanbecker.com
Internet: http://www.becker.de
*******************************************
Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet.
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the contents in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
*******************************************
Reply to: