|
|
| Re: Max Deadlock Obtained (470951) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (473151) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Tue Aug 7 23:31:39 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 7 23:15:52 2007. Blue screens in NT progreny are indeed rare and almost always the result of a badly written driver clobbering another one or just plain walking off the plank. In kernel mode, the kernel itself doesn't manage memory and you have to be PERFECT in doing so in your own code. I write code for a living.Anything that runs for the life of the operating system has to be perfect. If it leaks memory, the OS will die. I haven’t written this sort of code for Windows, but I have written similar sort of code for MVS (and its successors) where my memory footprint had to be the bare minimum because the code and data areas were locked down (since they were executed as part of interrupt service code and couldn’t be paged in). Any memory I used was thus unavailable for normal programs paging. "Illegal operation" is an interesting one because here, it CAN be the fault of the code, but more often than not it really is windows unless it happens at the same place every time in a proggie. Here's what goes on behind the scenes since most of them are 0x00000005 errors, or "buffer overflow." A program is merrily going along until it uses up a block of memory and needs some more. At this point, windows will "raise an exception" to which the kernel is supposed to jump in an "page in" more memory and page out the old memory which is still in use (also known as a "swap"). The FIRST exception call usually will swap in the memory but if windows can't find it, it becomes an "unhandled exception." The program can EXPECT this and try the call again but more often than not, windows will not find more space the second time it's asked to and up comes "Illegal operation" when the kernel is at fault. OMG! Is this really Windows’ memory management model? You use memory until it runs out when you may be able to handle the error? Again the MVS model: although you had a 2GB address space, you couldn’t use any block of memory unless you had requested it from the OS. And the OS limited how much you could request (based on parameters specified for the job) so that an errant program couldn’t run away with all the backing store for virtual memory on the machine). XP and Vista are even MORE scrooched in that they've added another layer of "rotsa ruck." It's called "not responding" and is definitely windows being hosed. Here, windows now pings a running program every x amount of seconds. If you TOUCH it while it's busy in an uninterruptable thread (heavy calcs) then windows will pop up a "not responding" making you think the proggie's died (sometimes it really has) when it actually hasn't. This is more of a “get the program model right” issue. If you have a program that does heavy calculations, then put them in a separate thread so that there is something left to handle the inevitable window manager messages (even if all you do is paint “update in progress xx% complete” on the window pane). However the error “recovery” you specify is bizarre. But not so surprising! |
|
|
| (473152) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 7 23:34:50 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by JohnL on Tue Aug 7 23:31:39 2007. Hehe. Yep, it really IS that dumb! And yeah, I'm a throwback to the days when 2K was all the memory you'd ever need. But yeah, MS compilers encourage stupidity and leak like a subway grating. :) |
|
|
| (473154) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Aug 7 23:45:17 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 7 07:14:34 2007. Well, so long as they don't start being marker-light shows... ;-) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (473155) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 7 23:46:02 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Aug 7 23:45:17 2007. Pretty much all they were good for. :) |
|
|
| (473159) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Aug 7 23:55:28 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 7 23:15:52 2007. XP and Vista are even MORE scrooched in that they've added another layer of "rotsa ruck." It's called "not responding" and is definitely windows being hosed. Here, windows now pings a running program every x amount of seconds. If you TOUCH it while it's busy in an uninterruptable thread (heavy calcs) then windows will pop up a "not responding" making you think the proggie's died (sometimes it really has) when it actually hasn't.Ah, the "you are drawing way too complicated a subway map for your hardware" message! My interpretation of that one is "for fuck's sake, hit CTRL-S". But at least stupid messages like that are better than the way some crashes happen in Linux -- like the one I managed when I input rather too much data (thankfully from various files) into Google Earth and it just disappeared -- POW! (And incidentally that's how I noticed the really stupid thing about how Google Earth is written -- it's a shove everything into memory and save settings on exit program, which is a really great recipe for losing tons of data.) |
|
|
| (473165) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 8 00:02:34 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Aug 7 23:55:28 2007. A *remarkable* amount of really bad Windows code is originally written in Linux and then ported to Billyworld. Kaff-kaff "Firephuck" and most googlings as well. That's why I refer to it as "open sores." :) |
|
|
| (473175) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Aug 8 00:38:07 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 8 00:02:34 2007. A *remarkable* amount of really bad Windows code is originally written in Linux and then ported to Billyworld. Kaff-kaff "Firephuck" and most googlings as well. That's why I refer to it as "open sores." :)For all Firephuck's leakiness, I actually have a bigger gripe with it: it's not a KDE/Qt app. And I'm not actually talking about memory usage, as although those stats are highly amusing, they're largely irrelevant -- they certainly never stopped anyone from enjoying using the GNOME variety of bloatware (and neither did the kind words of Linus Torvalds, for that matter): Desktop + browser Usage KDE + Konqueror 95.3 KDE + Firefox 108.0 KDE + Epiphany 112.5 GNOME + Epiphany 127.7 GNOME + Firefox 133.6 GNOME + Konqueror 136.5 What gets me about Firephuck is more subtly annoying: 1) I like having a menu bar on my KDE desktop, for obvious reasons:  2) KDE/Qt apps will then use the existing menu bar:  3) Non-native apps, like Firephuck, leave the existing menu bar blank, then insert a second menu bar of their own:  Now, I'd be the first to admit that Konqueror is in serious need of development to be "fully featured" in modern terms (it has serious problems with certain of the clever things certain Google sites do, for instance), but at least it doesn't waste space with an extra menu bar like Firephuck does! |
|
|
| (473197) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 8 02:04:16 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Aug 8 00:38:07 2007. Yep ... but the problem is that an app has to be designed to be aware of and then use it. You don't do that on things that are cross-platform and use whatever the OS itself offers instead. Fer'instance, I prefer Gnome. So anything designed for KDE doesn't do it for me. |
|
|
| (473221) | |
Very OT on Linux and stuff Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Aug 8 04:27:08 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 8 02:04:16 2007. Yep ... but the problem is that an app has to be designed to be aware of and then use it.Of course, at that sort of level, those gimmicky memory usage stats, which neatly demonstrate that precisely the sort of app that is designed like that is most efficient, can be used to construct a "let's design everything for KDE" argument. But then again, I like KDE... Fer'instance, I prefer Gnome. Any particular reasons why? (Obviously, contrary to Linus Torvald's assertions, you are not an idiot.) So anything designed for KDE doesn't do it for me. It must really suck not having all the right libs running in the background anyway. ;-) |
|
|
| (473224) | |
Re: Very OT on Linux and stuff Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 8 04:35:13 2007, in response to Very OT on Linux and stuff Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Aug 8 04:27:08 2007. Nah, I've been confirmed to be an idiot by at least two other idiots here. Heh. Only reason why I use Gnome is because it's small. Since I keep myself safe by using a memory-only file system from a CDROM, the smaller everything is, the more memory I have left over for pr0n when I surf. And as we all know, that TRAIN pr0n can get pretty greedy in a web browser. KDE needs a lot of stuff, gets mighty cranky if it doesn't like the libraries whereas Gnome just runs and doesn't do much beyond a GUI. And the less temptations to slap more lipstick on a pig, the better. One CAN configure it nicely for what you want and very little memory is squandered for useless features ... very handy. Since I have a browser or a chat window filling the screen most of the time, don't care what's hidden behind it. :) |
|
|
| (473411) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Aug 8 12:30:49 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 7 23:15:52 2007. What I wonder is, when those programs start hanging, and then sometimes it's like a domino effect, where it takes out all of "iexplore" (the desktop, all programs, the time even freezes) and you have to turn it off by the switch; why they disabled the "Pause Break" key. Wasn't that designed to stop frozen programs hung up in loops like that? It seems they designed it so that you would have to turn off the power, and do whatever damage to the system that does. |
|
|
| (473466) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Aug 8 14:03:15 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Aug 4 21:32:42 2007. LOL! The message that appears in my image in those ad spots is "this space intentionally left blank".--Mark |
|
|
| (473613) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 8 17:57:37 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by Eric B on Wed Aug 8 12:30:49 2007. That's what happens when Windows itself bombs. Ain't it purty!? :) |
|
|
| (473614) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 8 18:01:04 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by Jeff H. on Mon Aug 6 01:47:25 2007. Who's the carbuilder? I remember SONY manuals where if you were lucky enough to get any english at all, you'd see something like "inserting tab B in the crimping place."I'm still trying to figure out why error messages go to the in car display instead of the TOD, but hey ... :) |
|
|
| (473663) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Wed Aug 8 20:56:15 2007, in response to Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Aug 4 20:47:25 2007. They finally caught him! |
|
|
| (473664) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Wed Aug 8 20:57:21 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by 9 local on Sat Aug 4 21:19:35 2007. I'm not sending ERROR any reports. |
|
|
| (473665) | |
Re: Max Deadlock Obtained |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Wed Aug 8 21:00:17 2007, in response to Re: Max Deadlock Obtained, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 7 23:15:52 2007. I get that once a week. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
