Fix #2229 detect available memory#2236
Conversation
rbtcollins
force-pushed
the
2229
branch
3 times, most recently
from
53497af to
5d88e2c
Compare
|
One possible critique of the patch is that I haven't wired up the UI to the eventing system. TBH I couldn't be bothered, but I can do that if thats the only issue. However I'm less and less enthralled by that system as time progresses; as we dont support the library as an API, and it's very cumbersome, I'd really like to bring a better system into being. |
kinnison
left a comment
kinnison
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer to see the use of AtomicBool otherwise I think it looks good. How confident are you about effective_limits as a crate for this? I'll defer to your judgement if you say it looks/feels sound.
rbtcollins
force-pushed
the
2229
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a3a63c0 to
719ace8
Compare
kinnison
left a comment
kinnison
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the use of AtomicBool somehow isn't right because the defaulting message is no longer displayed. Either way the tests need checking because they're failing.
rbtcollins
force-pushed
the
2229
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f6d5cce to
f1ff29a
Compare
This doesn't implement streaming IO for low memory situations - we still have the situation that low footprint situations will fail to install, but while it is the case that rustc's memory footprint is lower than our unpack footprint this is probably not urgent to fix, though I will get around to it. Being less aggressive about unpack buffer size though should reduce the number of support tickets from folk in these cases, I hope. We may end up getting tickets from folk with broken ulimit syscalls though, who knows.
kinnison
left a comment
kinnison
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am really getting to be grumpy about our notification system :D For now, 👍
2 participants
This doesn't implement streaming IO for low memory situations - we still
have the situation that low footprint situations will fail to install,
but while it is the case that rustc's memory footprint is lower than our
unpack footprint this is probably not urgent to fix, though I will get
around to it.
Being less aggressive about unpack buffer size though should reduce the
number of support tickets from folk in these cases, I hope.
We may end up getting tickets from folk with broken ulimit syscalls
though, who knows.