From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 29 14:14:15 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08F3651 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:14:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rodperson@rodperson.com) Received: from www6.pairlite.com (www6.pairlite.com [64.130.10.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE1C80B for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:14:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (c-71-60-224-178.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [71.60.224.178]) by www6.pairlite.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD1A967AEE; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5155A1A4.6080801@rodperson.com> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:13:56 -0400 From: Rod Person User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lowell Gilbert Subject: Re: Help porting Linux app - getting Free Memory and Real Memory References: <5156316F.9050202@rodperson.com> <20130329032845.GG81066@server.rulingia.com> <44li962xmp.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <51559451.9050708@rodperson.com> <44haju2tgk.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <44haju2tgk.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:32:44 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, lists@eitanadler.com X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:14:15 -0000 On 03/29/13 10:04, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > I would recommend removing the check completely. The upstream author > should do this for the Linux version as well; it really doesn't make > sense in a system that supports virtual memory. If you decide to > support it anyway to make some kind of performance guarantees, you > probably should check against all of user memory; "free" memory is by > definition being underutilized. Well, being that I received this suggestion from you and Eitan; this is probably the way to go. I'll contact the upstream author and see if he has a better explanation as why he does this. There is one other section that uses this check also, but I have not seen it raise a warning on my testing of the app. Thank you guys. Rod