[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9924] Suggestion for a memory() function

From: Lars Kindermann
Subject: [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9924] Suggestion for a memory() function
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 06:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0

Follow-up Comment #26, patch #9924 (project octave):

@markus, re comment #22
>> I also added a fallback to MemFree if MemAvailable doesn't exist in
>> proc/meminfo. Is this ok? Or is there something better we can do? 

This is from the kernel patch comment that indrocuded the MemAvailable field:


"Many load balancing and workload placing programs check /proc/meminfo to
estimate how much free memory is available.  They generally do this by
adding up "free" and "cached", which was fine ten years ago, but is
pretty much guaranteed to be wrong today."

So I added the "ten year old way" to memory.m as a fallback:

  if (isfield(meminfo_numeric,"MemAvailable"))
    AvailableRAM = meminfo_numeric.MemAvailable * kiB;
    # on kernels from before 2014 MemAvailable is not present
    # this is a rough estimate to be used instead 
    AvailableRAM = (meminfo_numeric.FreeRAM + meminfo_numeric.Cached) * kiB;


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]