From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:49:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:48:55 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:51729 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:48:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:46:59 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Anton Altaparmakov Cc: "Michael Nguyen" , "David S. Miller" , "Petko Manolov" , Subject: Re: RE2: kmalloc Message-ID: <20010615154659.A942@conectiva.com.br> Mail-Followup-To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Anton Altaparmakov , "Michael Nguyen" , "David S. Miller" , "Petko Manolov" , In-Reply-To: <8A098FDFC6EED94B872CA2033711F86F01A9A2@orion.ariodata.com> <8A098FDFC6EED94B872CA2033711F86F01A9A2@orion.ariodata.com> <20010615145856.C960@conectiva.com.br> <5.1.0.14.2.20010615192508.00afe540@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615192508.00afe540@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>; from aia21@cam.ac.uk on Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:26:16PM +0100 X-Url: http://advogato.org/person/acme Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:26:16PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov escreveu: > At 18:58 15/06/2001, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >Em Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 10:41:59AM -0700, Michael Nguyen escreveu: > > > >>Petko Manolov writes: > > > >> kmalloc fails to allocate more than 128KB of > > > >> memory regardless of the flags (GFP_KERNEL/USER/ATOMIC) > > > >> > > > >> Any ideas? > > > > > > >Yes, this is the limit. > > > > > > Im relatively new to Linux. I would like to ask. > > > Is this limit per kmalloc()? Can I do this multiple times? > > > >the limit is for a single invocation of kmalloc, yes, you can do it multiple > >times. > > But if you need that much memory it would be better that you use vmalloc AFAIK. Yup, like I suggested to Petko in a previous message :) - Arnaldo