On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 22:48, Anand Mistry<akmis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, in general, how useful is knowing VM size considering it's not
> > necessarily corollated with actual memory usage?
>
> I chatted with a few people when doing doing my memory work. Based on
> this, I think we should look at two criteria for what to display on
> the Linux port:
>
> - what we can measure accurately
> - information that will be useful to the user
>
> I don't think there is any use in showing the user the VM size. If a
> dev needs it, he can use top(1).
Well, out of the 5 stats on that page, 4 of them can be reported with a fair
amount of accuracy (WS private, WS shared, WS total, VM mapped). The first
three are pretty obvious and apply to just about any platform. VM mapped
can be reported very accurately by parsing /proc/<pid>/smaps and might
arguably be useful.
>
>
> Also, by not trying to display the exact same columns as windows does,
> hopefully there will be fewer uninformed comparisons of the numbers
> between platforms.
Which bring about another question, how consistent should we be across
platform? Do we really want to show different stats on different
platforms?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joel
>
@Brett: I've read it now and the relevant parts only talk about working set,
not VM.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
