On Friday, February 11, 2011 17:19:04 Hendrik Schumacher wrote: > > Interesting. I didn't know that. But I think the questions that Torsten > > was posing about what would happen if an admin turned off swap while > > things were running doesn't apply then, right? This memory isn't in > > swap, it's just not in RAM. So turning off swap won't cause the > > shared/unshared sizes to blow up, right? > > Yes and no. If I modify the example from above: > > Size: 884 kB > Rss: 536 kB > Pss: 17 kB > Shared_Clean: 536 kB > Shared_Dirty: 0 kB > Private_Clean: 0 kB > Private_Dirty: 0 kB > Referenced: 536 kB > Swap: 64 kB > > then switching off the swap would cause the Shared or the Private to "blow > up" by 64 kb. Only the address space that is neither present nor swapped > does not cause any effect when switching off the swap.
Maybe I oversimplified a bit here. Turning off swap was also only an example of "a large part of notpresent suddenly becomes known". But actually I can't think of another example without activity of the process in question. And if the process is the culprit of the unusual event then it is perhaps also worth to be terminated. Torsten Förtsch -- Need professional modperl support? Hire me! (http://foertsch.name) Like fantasy? http://kabatinte.net
