On Thu, Apr 12th, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Rob van der Heij wrote: > With 22 processes having this mapped, I would count it as 22 times 8 > kB while it really is just 8 kB on swap? And how come part of this is > private when it's read-only?
Note the last sentence of my previous post. That applies (particularly) to myself. The memory metrics are "interesting" in a number of ways. For shared libraries the memory (swap in this case) appears to replicated, but not additive. This was a burr in the saddle for so many people they eventually invented PSS to try and apportion responsibility for RSS - that's "your" ratio based on reference count (I think). Don't try to apply logic to it. As for the "private"- it's *all" private. That's what the "p" permission flag is - indicates cow. My question would be what has changed to force an anonymous allocation ?. And who was responsible, given that your referenced allocation is zero ?. Hopefully one of the bright folks in the German labs will come to our aid whilst I sleep ... ;-) Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
