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
> > h
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 w
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-k
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
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 correc
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 t
6 matches
Mail list logo
