From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:36:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:35:53 -0400 Received: from jalon.able.es ([212.97.163.2]:61914 "EHLO jalon.able.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:35:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:35:34 +0200 From: "J . A . Magallon" To: "Martin . Knoblauch" Cc: "linux-kernel @ vger . kernel . org" Subject: Re: Size of /proc/kcore growing over time ? Message-ID: <20010512003534.A1060@werewolf.able.es> In-Reply-To: <3AFBE5BF.5865B0CA@TeraPort.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In-Reply-To: <3AFBE5BF.5865B0CA@TeraPort.de>; from Martin.Knoblauch@TeraPort.de on Fri, May 11, 2001 at 15:14:39 +0200 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.1.4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05.11 Martin.Knoblauch wrote: > > I ask, because I thought the size of kproc could be used to determine > the amount of physical memory. If this assumption is wrong, is there > another way to achive the goal? > #include // for get_phys_pages() #include // for getpagesize() ram = get_phys_pages()*getpagesize(); -- J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you... mailto:jamagallon@able.es Linux Mandrake release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586 Linux werewolf 2.4.4-ac6 #1 SMP Wed May 9 14:28:00 CEST 2001 i686