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
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
