From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Does Emacs return memory to the system on Mac OS X or *BSD? Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 18:23:31 +0300 Message-ID: <83inl7a03w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831srwbqz9.fsf@gnu.org> <83k25o9l11.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1494517041 3300 195.159.176.226 (11 May 2017 15:37:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: theophilusx@gmail.com, georgie@southernohio.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 11 17:37:15 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8q9S-0000gW-Sh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 17:37:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48891 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8q9Y-0000cu-F2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 11:37:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59481) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8pwS-0006Q1-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 11:23:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8pwO-0003Yl-7J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 11:23:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8pwO-0003Yf-4N; Thu, 11 May 2017 11:23:44 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1983 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d8pwN-0000EK-Aw; Thu, 11 May 2017 11:23:43 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Thu, 11 May 2017 08:29:31 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:214791 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: theophilusx@gmail.com, georgie@southernohio.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 08:29:31 -0400 > > >> IOW the only difference is in the fact that it requires more swap space, > >> which can occasionally be noticeable, e.g. when you don't have swap > >> space at all. > > No, it also means that part of the VM address space is in use and > > cannot be used by other apps. > > What do you mean by "VM address space"? That pages mapped into some process's address space diminish the total amount of VM which the system can allocate, even if those pages are swapped out of physical memory. Only unmapping them from the process's address space will make them available for use by other processes.