On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 05:16:45PM +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
Given that it can be quite complex and introduce new bugs, and given that it's really quite a useless feature IMHO as modern Linux boxes will hang themselves in swap hell before returning NULL from malloc I don't think this should be a janitorial project.
While I agree this may be not an easy thing to do without looking at the whole code very throughly I think saying that it doesn't help at all because on Linux you will never get this problem is a little shortsighted. Wine doesn't only compile for Linux and there might be other systems with a very straightforward swapping system which will run out of memory before the disk dies from overactivity. Also who says that the next version of Linux or some sort of stress test extension, a security hardened kernel, or a memory quota system on user basis or whatever, will not add an easy to get into out of memory situation. Couldn't Solaris for instance limit the memory available to users on a user base eventhough there are loads and loads of physical memory still available?
Rolf Kalbermatter
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:02:56AM +0100, Rolf Kalbermatter wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 05:16:45PM +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
Given that it can be quite complex and introduce new bugs, and given that it's really quite a useless feature IMHO as modern Linux boxes will hang themselves in swap hell before returning NULL from malloc I don't think this should be a janitorial project.
While I agree this may be not an easy thing to do without looking at the whole code very throughly I think saying that it doesn't help at all because on Linux you will never get this problem is a little shortsighted. Wine doesn't only compile for Linux and there might be other systems with a very straightforward swapping system which will run out of memory before the disk dies from overactivity. Also who says that the next version of Linux or some sort of stress test extension, a security hardened kernel, or a memory quota system on user basis or whatever, will not add an easy to get into out of memory situation. Couldn't Solaris for instance limit the memory available to users on a user base eventhough there are loads and loads of physical memory still available?
Why Solaris? A ulimit -S -m 10000000 should do the very same thing, no? Hmm, maybe not on Wine, since Wine uses "special" memory management...
Andreas Mohr
-
Andreas Mohr -
Rolf Kalbermatter