On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, Gavin Shan wrote: > >> The initial idea comes from Cong Wang. We're running out of memory > >> while calling function skip_free_areas_node(). So it would be unsafe > >> to allocate more memory from either stack or heap. The patche adds > >> more comments to address that. > > > >I think these comments should add to show_free_areas(), > >not skip_free_areas_node(). > > > > aha, exactly. Thanks a lot, Cong. > There are two issues you're trying to describe here that I told you about: - allocating memory on the stack when called in a potentially very deep call chain, and - dynamically allocating memory in oom conditions. There are thousands of functions that could be called potentially very deep in a call chain, there's nothing special about this one besides the fact that you tried to optimize it by allocating a nodemask on the stack in a previous patch. show_mem(), which calls show_free_areas(), is also not called only in oom conditions so the comment wouldn't apply at all. In other words, there's nothing special about this particular function with regard to these traits. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>