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

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

-----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-----

Frank Joerdens wrote:
> Would top give false
> information here about RAM consumption?
>
Well, now that you know that "ps" shows threads as processes on Linux,
EACH thread
for that processes should show the SAME about of RAM usage.  If this is always
the
case, it's just up to you to interpret the "ps" output properly. 
If there was a case
that an instance of a thread for a process would be reported as using a
DIFFERENT
amount of RAM, then you might be somewhat concerned.

If the thread implementation on Linux is changed in the future, then the
"ps" output
might be different.

In other words, I think "top" and "ps" wouldn't
"lie" about resource usage.  The
display of the resource usage is just different than what you are used to
seeing.
 Keep in mind, Windows NT and later was designed as multi-threaded OSes from day
one
and threads on Unix were added later on......

Peace.....

Tom

To be sure, be the same as Saint Thomas:
issue a free before and after the launch of wine app.
So you'll see that the application uses only 32 MB, instead of 160.
> 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?

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com