Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Christoph Rohland wrote: > > Hi Allan, > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Allan Duncan wrote: > > OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same, > > however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, > > rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel > > hackers like me up the garden path. > This would probably break a lot of user space apps. Then only break those that do a lousy parsing of meminfo and change the heading line to "shared_is_not_real:" or somesuch? Anyway, aren't the user apps being led up the garden path with the wrong answer? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Hi Allan, On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Allan Duncan wrote: > OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same, > however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, > rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel > hackers like me up the garden path. This would probably break a lot of user space apps. Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Hi Allan, On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Allan Duncan wrote: OK, it's fine by me if the shared under 2.2.x is not the same, however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel hackers like me up the garden path. This would probably break a lot of user space apps. Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Christoph Rohland wrote: Hi Allan, On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Allan Duncan wrote: OK, it's fine by me if the shared under 2.2.x is not the same, however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel hackers like me up the garden path. This would probably break a lot of user space apps. Then only break those that do a lousy parsing of meminfo and change the heading line to shared_is_not_real: or somesuch? Anyway, aren't the user apps being led up the garden path with the wrong answer? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same, however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel hackers like me up the garden path. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Hi Albert, On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > You misunderstood what 2.2.xx kernels were reporting. > The "shared" memory in /proc/meminfo refers to something > completely unrelated to SysV shared memory. This is no > longer calculated because the computation was too costly. But the load of misinterpretations and the missing value led me to export the number of shmem pages in later -ac kernels exactly in this field. I know it is a change of semantics and because of this both Alan and me asked for comments if this change is appreciated. I am still waiting for responses though. Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Hi Albert, On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: You misunderstood what 2.2.xx kernels were reporting. The shared memory in /proc/meminfo refers to something completely unrelated to SysV shared memory. This is no longer calculated because the computation was too costly. But the load of misinterpretations and the missing value led me to export the number of shmem pages in later -ac kernels exactly in this field. I know it is a change of semantics and because of this both Alan and me asked for comments if this change is appreciated. I am still waiting for responses though. Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
OK, it's fine by me if the shared under 2.2.x is not the same, however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel hackers like me up the garden path. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Allan Duncan writes: > Since the 2.4.x advent of shm as tmpfs or thereabouts, > /proc/meminfo shows shared memory as 0. It is in > reality not zero, and is being allocated, and shows > up in /proc/sysvipc/shm and /proc/sys/kernel/shmall > etc.. > Neither 2.4.6-pre5 nor 2.4.5-ac17 have the correct > display. You misunderstood what 2.2.xx kernels were reporting. The "shared" memory in /proc/meminfo refers to something completely unrelated to SysV shared memory. This is no longer calculated because the computation was too costly. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Since the 2.4.x advent of shm as tmpfs or thereabouts, /proc/meminfo shows shared memory as 0. It is in reality not zero, and is being allocated, and shows up in /proc/sysvipc/shm and /proc/sys/kernel/shmall etc.. Neither 2.4.6-pre5 nor 2.4.5-ac17 have the correct display. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Since the 2.4.x advent of shm as tmpfs or thereabouts, /proc/meminfo shows shared memory as 0. It is in reality not zero, and is being allocated, and shows up in /proc/sysvipc/shm and /proc/sys/kernel/shmall etc.. Neither 2.4.6-pre5 nor 2.4.5-ac17 have the correct display. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo
Allan Duncan writes: Since the 2.4.x advent of shm as tmpfs or thereabouts, /proc/meminfo shows shared memory as 0. It is in reality not zero, and is being allocated, and shows up in /proc/sysvipc/shm and /proc/sys/kernel/shmall etc.. Neither 2.4.6-pre5 nor 2.4.5-ac17 have the correct display. You misunderstood what 2.2.xx kernels were reporting. The shared memory in /proc/meminfo refers to something completely unrelated to SysV shared memory. This is no longer calculated because the computation was too costly. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
