On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Albert Cahalan wrote:
Memory reservations are a different beast entirely. Running
out of memory becomes approximately impossible because
the user is blocked from starting too many activities.
This seems like a
On 2 Nov 2008, at 06:07, Albert Cahalan wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Albert Cahalan wrote:
Memory reservations are a different beast entirely. Running
out of memory becomes approximately impossible because
the user is blocked from
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Albert Cahalan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could the oom-killer have a hook to enable this functionality to be
invoked instead of simply killing the application?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Albert Cahalan wrote:
Memory reservations are a different beast entirely. Running
out of memory becomes approximately impossible because
the user is blocked from starting too many activities.
This seems like a silly statement to me. Almost every
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you continue down this path (auto-saving application state to NAND
when we run out of memory)? How tenable is the idea of saving
application state to NAND on our system?
Could the oom-killer have a hook to enable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Albert Cahalan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you continue down this path (auto-saving application state to NAND
when we run out of memory)? How tenable is the idea of saving
application
On Oct 30 2008, at 10:05, Erik Garrison was caught saying:
Deepak,
Did you continue down this path (auto-saving application state to NAND
when we run out of memory)? How tenable is the idea of saving
application state to NAND on our system?
No I haven't. :(
Could the oom-killer have a
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Hal Murray wrote:
One would adjust the shading in each activities portion of the circle. White
for not used and black for used. (Red for over allocation?)
The other would be to use the applications chunk of the circle as a pie
shaped bar graph. The black section
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So UI changes that help make this clearer will probably be a good idea
for a 9.1 ... :-/
There was an early sketch of a mechanism similar to the old Home View
circle, where there was a space allocated to each open
Note that more current Linux kernels, such as that in 8.2, are much
better at being able to account for what process is using what memory.
It's probably worth a little experimentation after 8.2 ships to see if
the original concept is now viable.
- Jim
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that more current Linux kernels, such as that in 8.2, are much
better at being able to account for what process is using what memory.
It's probably worth a little experimentation after 8.2 ships to see if
the original
I think a memory usage pie graph is beyond excellent. I'm not so sure
it should show current usage though.
I'm assuming that each activity gets allocated a chunk of the pie
corresponding to how much memory it asks for.
How about using part of the circle to show the fraction of memory
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Gary C Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 Sep 2008, at 01:00, Martin Langhoff wrote:
From your experience are your newcomers accidentally or intentionally
launching too many Activities? Is it that they genuinely wanted to have N
activities all running at
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:57 PM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: We don't even know the mem footprint of our activities. It all
gets jumbled up by Sugar and Security and other changes. Nobody
thinks the numbers in top are useful, nobody has any better way to
measure the mem
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Bobby Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
setting RAM requirements reminds me of classic macos :)
Indeed. And quite fitting - classic macos is the most recent (and
memorable) case of no swap multi-tasking OS we have. Granted, it
*had* a broken vmem scheme, but in
On 25 Sep 2008, at 01:00, Martin Langhoff wrote:
I agree with Albert's proposal - Newcomers to the Wellington test team
open too many apps all the time - and render their machines unusable
through memory pressure. From that experience, I like the idea of
adding a bit of metadata that hints
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Gary C Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 Sep 2008, at 01:00, Martin Langhoff wrote:
I agree with Albert's proposal - Newcomers to the Wellington test team
open too many apps all the time - and render their machines unusable
through memory pressure. From
I agree with Albert's proposal - Newcomers to the Wellington test team
open too many apps all the time - and render their machines unusable
through memory pressure. From that experience, I like the idea of
adding a bit of metadata that hints the mem footprint, and teaching
sugar to prevent
On Sep 23 2008, at 03:40, Albert Cahalan was caught saying:
Determining the RAM requirement for an activity goes something like
the following:
awk '/Dirty/{x+=$2} END{print x}' /proc/12345/smaps
(after exercising all functionality)
I like the idea overall but this part worries me. An
At Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:57:36 -0700,
Deepak Saxena wrote:
On Sep 23 2008, at 03:40, Albert Cahalan was caught saying:
Determining the RAM requirement for an activity goes something like
the following:
awk '/Dirty/{x+=$2} END{print x}' /proc/12345/smaps
(after exercising all
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the zillionth time, my kids brought my XO to a halt. They started
up two copies of Tux Paint and two copies of Colors! (BTW, boy do I
hate names with built-in sentence-ending punctuation) The end result
is that the
21 matches
Mail list logo
