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
