On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 02:21:07PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: >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. > Thanks for your review, David. So please drop it :-) Thanks, Gavin -- 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>