Is wine *always* mapping threads onto processes? (Was: Re: multiple instance
ncapik at patriot.net
Wed Sep 11 06:29:43 CDT 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 ;)
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 at winehq.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the wine-users