This is slightly different (1-order rather than 2-order), but it does indeed look like SA is involved. I'm also noting the one complaint about imapd.
__alloc_pages: 1-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) __alloc_pages: task(spamc) pid(15858) caller(000000000046ed98) __alloc_pages: 1-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) __alloc_pages: task(spamc) pid(15873) caller(000000000046ed98) __alloc_pages: 1-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) __alloc_pages: task(spamc) pid(16043) caller(000000000046ed98) __alloc_pages: 1-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) __alloc_pages: task(spamc) pid(16043) caller(000000000046ed98) __alloc_pages: 1-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) __alloc_pages: task(imapd) pid(14534) caller(000000000046ed98) On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:49:36AM -0800, David S. Miller said: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:42:45 -0500 > Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I can try the patch if you still feel it'll help - but it does look > > like SA was at fault in this particular case. > > Just knowing it is SA is insufficient information, we need to know > what inside of the kernel, as part of whatever SA is doing, asks > for such a large allocation. > > Please apply the patch and obtain the debugging information, as I have > asked you to. -- Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> System Administrator Psychology Department, Rutgers University, Newark campus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
