David, do you know if anything further was done on this issue? Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:52:17AM -0700, David S. Miller said: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:47:54 -0400 > Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Apr 29 08:45:34 psychology kernel: __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed > > (gfp=0x20/0) > > Apr 29 08:45:34 psychology kernel: __alloc_pages: task(spamc) pid(25917) > > caller(000000000046edc0) > > Apr 29 08:45:34 psychology kernel: DEBUG: __get_free_pages() order 2 failed > > called by 000000000046aaa8 > ... > > 000000000046a9c0 t kmem_cache_grow > > 000000000046ad00 T kmem_cache_alloc_batch > > Does spamc use AF_UNIX sockets to communicate with other > processes? If so, someone should audit it to make sure it > checks properly for return values on write() calls. > > If spamc uses non-blocking AF_UNIX sockets, -ENOBUFS can > happen under normal circumstances. If the sockets were > blocking then the kernel could sleep to swap out some pages > to free up some space and then the call could succeed. > > A quick perusal of the spamc sources seems to indicate > that it does use non-blocking AF_UNIX sockets as the > transport to talk to the spamassasindaemon. I'm on > vacation so cannot investigate this more deeply. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- 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]