RE: 0k shared?

RE: 0k shared?

[Colin Bayer]

Ketil,

> As you can see, there is no shared memory here. Is this something I > ought to worry about, or is it normal? I've been using the system, 
> and since things were lagging, I looked at 'top', and this just 
> caught my eye.
> Any reason for worry?
>
> And if you *really* want me to, I can see if I can reproduce this, 
> though I'd rather not. :-)
>

Hate to say this, but RTFFAQ.  On the linux-kernel FAQ (I forget the address), it mentions that in kernel 2.4.x, it became too hard to compute sharedmem, so they just left it blank... 8-)

     -- Colin


On the first day, man created the computer.  On the second day, God proclaimed from the heavens, "F0 0F C7 C8".

------------------------------------------------------------
The CompNerd Network: http://www.compnerd.com/
Where a nerd can be a nerd.  Get your free webmail@compnerd.net!

0k shared?

[Ketil Froyn]

Hi.

This may be a stupid question, but I found this strange. In making a small
benchmarking utility, I made the following directory structure by mistake:
a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/.....

By ..... I mean this goes on and on, there were around 18 thousand
directories inward like this. A great example of the damage a bug in a
recursive program can do ;) Anyway, I've removed it now (btw, rm -rf on
this sigsegved :D).

And now for the question. My /proc/meminfo looks like this:

        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  195678208 192753664  2924544        0 116613120 45502464
Swap: 361902080 98807808 263094272
MemTotal:       191092 kB
MemFree:          2856 kB
MemShared:           0 kB
Buffers:        113880 kB
Cached:          44436 kB
Active:          20256 kB
Inact_dirty:    136116 kB
Inact_clean:      1944 kB
Inact_target:        8 kB
HighTotal:           0 kB
HighFree:            0 kB
LowTotal:       191092 kB
LowFree:          2856 kB
SwapTotal:      353420 kB
SwapFree:       256928 kB

As you can see, there is no shared memory here. Is this something I ought
to worry about, or is it normal? I've been using the system, and since
things were lagging, I looked at 'top', and this just caught my eye.
Any reason for worry?

And if you *really* want me to, I can see if I can reproduce this, though
I'd rather not. :-)

# uname -a
Linux ketil.np 2.4.3 #3 SMP Sat Jun 30 05:23:12 CEST 2001 i686 unknown

The kernel has the international kernel patch.

Ketil

Re: 0k shared?

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Ketil Froyn wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> This may be a stupid question, but I found this strange. In making a small
> benchmarking utility, I made the following directory structure by mistake:
> a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/.....
> 
> By ..... I mean this goes on and on, there were around 18 thousand
> directories inward like this. A great example of the damage a bug in a
> recursive program can do ;) Anyway, I've removed it now (btw, rm -rf on
> this sigsegved :D).
> 
> And now for the question. My /proc/meminfo looks like this:
[SNIPPED]

Not related. Somebody decided that it was too expensive to
keep track of shared memory usage so this field has been blank
for some time now.

Of course, the shared memory usage could be calculated by
the task that accesses the /proc file-system so the reason
cited above could go away. The cost would be that it wastes
a whole page of memory, but memory is plentiful now-a-days.


Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).

    I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
    attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
    was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any.