pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Meminfo confusion

To: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Meminfo confusion
From: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:12:23 +1100
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:00:30 +1100." <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202181257100.15476-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:00:30 +1100 (EST), 
Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:26:09 +1100 (EST), 
>> Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >Also notice physmem as reported in /proc/meminfo does not 
>> >correspond to real physical mem; it's almost the same, but does
>> >not account for a small amount of mem reserved by the kernel.
>> >A way to figure out the exact amount still eludes me .. anyone know?
>> 
>> ls -l /proc/kcore | awk '{printf("mem=%dM\n", ($5-4096)/1024/1024)}'
>> 
>> Works for me on i386 and ia64.  Have not tried it on discontiguous
>> systems.  It reports what memory the kernel can see, not what the
>> machine has, which is exactly what we want for performance purposes.
>> 
>
>but not what we want for reporting machine h/w inventory,
>as needed for the hinv.physmem PCP metric. 
>
>Running this on sherman (2G RAM), this is way off:
>sherman 1% ls -l /proc/kcore | awk '{printf("mem=%dM\n", ($5-4096)/1024/1024)}'
>mem=896M

Because sherman is running a kernel that was not compiled for highmem.
That restricts the kernel to 896M of physical memory, the value is
correct.  I will recompile sherman for highmem.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>