Happens to Me too, it appears Micro$oft has been shoving down function calls since 1995 to make sure you have the right ram. I have 320Mb, set to imitate winme, but my M$ apps say I still don't have enough Andreas Mohr wrote: >On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 08:17:09AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote: > > >>On 2002.08.18 12:21 Andreas Mohr wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:32:54AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote: >>> >>> >>>>After running Wine for awhile, /proc/meminfo reports MemTotal as >>>> >>>> >>>32680 >>> >>> >>>>kb. The system performs as if it only had 32 MB of RAM. A reboot >>>> >>>> >>>of >>> >>> >>>>the system resets total memory to the proper value. >>>> >>>>My question is: >>>> >>>>1) Has anybody else encountered this? >>>>2) Does anyone know what causes this, or better yet how to avoid it? >>>>3) Is there anyway to recover the lost RAM short of a reboot? >>>> >>>> >>>Huh ? This is very, very, VERY strange ! >>>Something like this should never happen. >>>Are you sure it's caused by Wine only, or maybe it is due to faulty >>>memory >>>instead ? (and thus the board/Linux notices that only 32MB are useable >>>and resorts to accessing 32MB only). >>> >>> >>Well I can't say with absolute certainty that it's caused by Wine, but >>the system runs without any problems for extended periods of time so >>long as I don't run Wine, and consistently 'loses' memory when I *do* >>run wine. >> >>I don't know exactly what's going on. I do know that there appears to >>be some sort of threshold that is reached at which point the memory >>hiding occurs (e.g., the same issue arises whether I run Wine for 5 >>hours at one shot or for 30 minutes a day for 10 days) and the >>threshold isn't 'reset' until I reboot. >> >> >> >>>Again, I'm utterly puzzled when hearing such a story. >>>Or maybe Wine accesses some Linux memory management function in some >>>way >>>that causes Linux to tamper with the value for some reason ? >>>This wouldn't be the first time that Wine is the only program to >>>reveal >>>some severe bug in Linux memory management... >>> >>>Definitely try upgrading your kernel, too. >>> >>> >>I have no problem with upgrading, but I would like to know *why* I am >>upgrading (i.e., what bug is causing the problem, and how does the new >>kernel address the bug). To do otherwise strikes me as being >>equivelant to the tendency in the Windows community whenever something >>odd happens. >> >> >*sigh* >You're definitely not of the easy kind of people, are you ? ;-) >A lot of people would just upgrade and be happy in case the bug is fixed, >but you... :) > >Well, if you're so eager to learn what the problem is, then I'd suggest >to get your hands pitch black dirty immediately ;-) > >Find out where /proc/meminfo gets fed with values, then find out which >part messes with the MemTotal value in any way. > >Hmm, arch/i386/mm/init.c/si_meminfo() sounds like a sure winner. >I'd suggest looking for the totalram_pages variable (add logging whenever >that one gets modified in some way). >OTOH I don't see any place where there is a direct assignment of that >variable. Hmm, where does that variable even get initialized then ??? >(well, probably declaration auto initialization then) > >Oh well, good luck ! ;) > > > _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@winehq.com http://www.winehq.com/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
