Brendan (btrotter.delete@this.gmail.com) on January 17, 2020 12:51 pm wrote:
> Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com) on January 16, 2020 2:13 pm wrote:
>
> > > Tell me,
> > > how do you think Windows is supposed to hibernate properly
> > > when you've gobbled 100% of RAM and 100% of disk?
> > > The only problem I see here is that Windows isn't using per-process quotas to stop your memory leak sooner.

As a side note, Windows uses separate hibernation file. It used to be preallocated and the size of physical memory, but nowadays it seems to be allocated on the fly and compressed, so typically much smaller than physical memory size.

> Software I write never continually increases its consumption until its hogging all memory the OS is willing
> to commit to, never needs anything like "timer based polling of resource consumption" (that's susceptible
> to rapid changes in resource consumption by other processes while my process is idle), relies purely on
> handling allocation failures when they occur (and never crashing when allocation failures occur), tries
> to minimize the amount it expects OS to commit to providing (never using fork, never using multiple processes
> when threads will do, never memory mapping files as "read/write", etc), and (in general) is designed with
> the assumption that the OS supports multi-tasking (and there may be many other processes running that are
> competing for the same resources, hopefully using the same resource management tactics I am).
>
> So, no, applications I write never need to go to those lengths to prevent OOMs.

You know, be changing just one line of code I could make each of our games like this (as far as our code is considered). Just preallocate 50 GBs[1] instead of 512 MBs on start and our memory manager never needs to ask for more during the running of the application. Unfortunately, one can be pretty sure that GPU driver will not work that way.

Our games are very simple from memory allocation point of view. They basically hit about 95 % of their peak value in relatively simple condition and even the worst outliers don't go much about that. One could think it similar to running a single tab with predetermined web page in Firefox, except that some webpages are worse.

[1] I'm almost 100 % sure 10 GBs would enough for all our published games and about 99,5 % sure 5 GBs would be enough. I don't think the amount is really relevant though.

-JLarja