wine users - Sep 2002 - Is wine *always* mapping threads onto processes? (Was: Re: multiple inst

Yup. You're right. 

1. Those are not processes since Linux 'ps' and 'top' reports
threads just
as it reports processes. 

2. Threads reports the total amount of RAM allocated to the process it belongs
to. (Excercise: what else could it report??)

/Fredrik
> 
> From: Nick Capik <ncapik@patriot.net>
> Date: 2002/09/11 Wed PM 01:29:43 CEST
> To: Frank Joerdens <frank@joerdens.de>,  wine-users@winehq.com
> Subject: Re: Is wine *always* mapping threads onto processes? (Was: Re:
multiple instance
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I believe that this memory is shared between the processes, so that the
total
> usage for the 5 processes is 32 MB.  (I am simply repeating what was said 
> previously about a similar situation, so don't ask many details ;)
> 
> Nick Capik
> 
> On Wednesday 11 September 2002 06:47 am, Frank Joerdens wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:43:12AM +0200, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> > > > > it's probably a unique instance of the app with 5
threads in it.
> > > > > each windows thread matches a unix-like process.
> > > >
> > > > Is that the general way wine translates windows threads,
mapping them
> > > > onto processes? Would that really be a good idea? Usually
the argument
> > > > goes that designing an app in a multithreaded rather than
multiprocess
> > > > fashion is better, more resource friendly, albeit harder to
do (e.g.
> > > > because inter-thread communication is much easier to do than
> > > > inter-process communication).
> > >
> > > Guys, are you *sure* that this is how Wine does it? You know,
Linux
> > > always lists threads as separate processes in the ps listing.
> >
> > Then it probably doesn't. That Linux lists threads like processes
would
> > explain it, kind of. What still bothers me a little though is that if
I
> > start the application under Windows 2000, in the Task-Manager I see
> > exactly one instance consuming 32 MB of RAM, whereas top under Linux
> > shows 5, consuming 32 MB each, or so it seems. Would top give false
> > information here about RAM consumption?
> >
> > Regards, Frank
> > _______________________________________________
> > wine-users mailing list
> > wine-users@winehq.com
> > http://www.winehq.com/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE9fykqP1TgTrKOOgsRAqQTAJwKX7iT8BK8xdCrz74ipWXqVyqUCACgwjwP
> edyfGq9LVajlKXzcQmCdoh4> =/uio
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wine-users mailing list
> wine-users@winehq.com
> http://www.winehq.com/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
>

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:41:00PM +0200, Fredrik Persson wrote:
[ . . . ]
> 2. Threads reports the total amount of RAM allocated to the process it
belongs
> to. (Excercise: what else could it report??)
Just for sheer politeness' sake, so as not to scare the likes of myself,
it might just somehow say: Hey, I'm a thread and this is not *really*
memory consumed all for myself alone, but shared amongst my sisters and
brethren . . . ;)

Regards, Frank