Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:58:14 +0100 (MET) | From | Max <> | Subject | Re: phew, that's better |
| |
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Steve VanDevender wrote:
>Now I'm trying to figure out why 2.2.0pre5 'free' says I have >only 30752k memory available when 2.2.0pre4 said I had 30816k >with an identical configuration. > >Jan 3 13:43:08 localhost kernel: Linux version 2.2.0-pre4 (stevev@tzadkiel) (gcc version 2.7.2.3) #26 Sun Jan 3 02:24:03 PST 1999 >Jan 3 13:43:08 localhost kernel: Memory: 30776k/32768k available (916k kernel code, 408k reserved, 628k data, 40k init) > >[ here 'free' used to report total mem of 30816k, I swear ] > >Jan 6 22:35:58 localhost kernel: Linux version 2.2.0-pre5 (stevev@tzadkiel) (gcc version 2.7.2.3) #27 Wed Jan 6 21:28:58 PST 1999 >Jan 6 22:35:58 localhost kernel: Memory: 30776k/32768k available (916k kernel code, 408k reserved, 628k data, 40k init) > >$ uname -a >Linux tzadkiel 2.2.0-pre5 #27 Wed Jan 6 21:28:58 PST 1999 i486 unknown >$ free > total used free shared buffers cached >Mem: 30752 29888 864 12384 840 9632 >-/+ buffers/cache: 19416 11336 >Swap: 99324 10900 88424
That's one of the things I don't like in 2.1.x and 2.2.0-prex ... they eat far more memory than 2.0.x.
That's also the reason behind my memory_save patch (which I sended to the list yesterday... if it didn't show up tell me and I'll repost it)
About memory usage differences between 2.2.0-pre4 and 2.2.0-pre5: From the messages you included, looks like memory usage is the same (916k kernel, 408k reserved, 628k data, 40k init) but that instead of freeing init memory, 2.2.0-pre5 allocates some more. If `init' memory were freed correctly, `free' would/should report 30816k (30776+40) both on 2.2.0-pre4 and on 2.2.0-pre5
Bye,
Massimiliano Ghilardi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |