C / C++ / MFC

George_George wrote:

Do you agree?

George_George wrote:

I am confused. How could it happen?

George_George wrote:

What in your definition and experience working set is? It is appreciated if you could share with us.

George_George wrote:

Do you have any ideas when/why working set is larger than virtual bytes?

George_George wrote:

I just did two experiements which shows working set is larger than virtual bytes,

led mike wrote:

You can explore the working set list using the kernel debugger

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) 
{ 
	LARGE_INTEGER start,end; 
	LARGE_INTEGER freq; 
	QueryPerformanceCounter(&start); 
	QueryPerformanceFrequency(&freq); 

	MEMORYSTATUS memstat; 
	void** map;
	int sectionIndex = 0;
	memstat.dwLength = sizeof(memstat); 
	GlobalMemoryStatus(&memstat); 

	// basic file mapping test (512 MB) 
	long long size = 512*1024*1024; 

	HANDLE mapping = 
	CreateFileMapping(NULL,NULL,PAGE_READWRITE|SEC_COMMIT,(DWORD)(size>>32),DWORD(size),NULL); 
	if (mapping) 
	{ 
		// create and destroy temporary views 
		SYSTEM_INFO sysInfo; 
		GetSystemInfo(&sysInfo); 
		const int allocSize = sysInfo.dwAllocationGranularity; 

		GlobalMemoryStatus(&memstat); 

		void *mem = new char[allocSize]; 
		memset(mem,0x11,allocSize); 

		map = (void**) new char [sizeof(void*) * size / allocSize];

		for (int i=0; i<10; i++) 
		{ 

			sectionIndex = 0;
			for (long long offset=0; offset<=size-allocSize; offset+=allocSize) 
			{ 
				map [sectionIndex] = 
				MapViewOfFile(mapping,FILE_MAP_WRITE,(DWORD)(offset<<32),(DWORD)offset,allocSize); 
				if (map [sectionIndex]) 
				{ 
					memcpy(map [sectionIndex],mem,allocSize); 
					// UnmapViewOfFile(map);
				}

				sectionIndex++;
			} // for (long long offset=0; offset<=size-allocSize; offset+=allocSize) 
			
			// close mapped files to avoid leak
			for (sectionIndex = 0; sectionIndex < size/allocSize; sectionIndex++)
			{
				if (map [sectionIndex])
				{ 
					UnmapViewOfFile(map [sectionIndex]);
				}
			}

			GlobalMemoryStatus(&memstat); 

			sectionIndex = 0;
			for (long long offset=0; offset<=size-allocSize; offset+=allocSize) 
			{ 
				map [sectionIndex] = 
				MapViewOfFile(mapping,FILE_MAP_READ,(DWORD)(offset<<32),(DWORD)offset,allocSize); 
				if (map [sectionIndex]) 
				{ 
					for (int t=0; t<allocSize; t++) 
					{ 
						if (((char *)(map [sectionIndex]))[t]!=0x11) 
						{ 
							OutputDebugString("Memory read failed\n"); 
						} 
					} 
				} 

				UnmapViewOfFile(map [sectionIndex]);
			} 

			// close mapped files to avoid leak
			/*
			for (sectionIndex = 0; sectionIndex < size/allocSize; sectionIndex++)
			{
				if (map [sectionIndex])
				{ 
					UnmapViewOfFile(map [sectionIndex]);
				}
			}
			*/

			GlobalMemoryStatus(&memstat); 
		} // for (int i=0; i<10; i++)

		QueryPerformanceCounter(&end); 

		GlobalMemoryStatus(&memstat); 

		printf("Time %.3f\n", 
		double(end.QuadPart-start.QuadPart)/double(freq.QuadPart)); 
		CloseHandle(mapping); 
		delete[] mem; 
		GlobalMemoryStatus(&memstat); 
	} //if (mapping)

	return 0;
} 

NS17 wrote:

2. In the timer function, by using (m_check.GetCheck() & BST_CHECKED) you can identify the state.

DavidCrow wrote:

why use the bitwise AND operator rather than just check for equality?

NS17 wrote:

Yes. It's a mistake.

CPallini wrote:

However checking for equality is more appropriate.