https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219155

Guido Falsi <madpi...@freebsd.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|New                         |Open
                 CC|                            |madpi...@freebsd.org

--- Comment #2 from Guido Falsi <madpi...@freebsd.org> ---
It's not completely true that inactive, wired and buffer memory is not
available to applications, in case of memory pressure some of that RAM can be
reclaimed.

In your description you talk about wired memory, but in the patch there's no
trace of wired, only buf memory though.

As a further note in head we now also have "laundry" memory which further
complicates the accounting.

That said it all boils down to what you are actually trying to measure.

The main point though is that in the ports tree we are just porting software
and are not supposed to change their logic, unless that's strictly needed to
have it work in FreeBSD.

So, if you think this software needs to account for memory in a different way
you should report this upstream as a bug there, but diverging in functionality
from the upstream in the FreeBSD port is not the correct way.

That is unless I'm missing something in your patch.

My opinion is that your patch should go upstream, and anyway needs refinements
to account for the finer details of memory subsystem.

We should anyway #ifdef the code specific to FreeBSD, or otherwise go with the
generic code the upstream provides.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-xfce@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xfce
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to