> But the VSZ of mfs usually doesn't count like this.

yes it does.  Believe me.  or, better yet, read the source.

> On a freshly
> rebooted machine the VSZ of mfs is equal to the swap space (and stays
> like this forever), but the actual VM usage is close to zero. That's
> what mfs (or Sun's tmpfs, for that matter) is all about. If it were to
> use 45 MB VM all the time, it'd be pretty useless.

BZZT!  you've obviously got *quite* an incorrect view of how 'mfs'
works.  MFS IS NOT LIKE SUN'S TMPFS!  It does *NOT* take space from
the VM pool, it takes the space you tell it to take, when you mount
it.  If you give it no size, it'll pick the size of the partition
you "mount it on."  If that happens to be your only swap partition,
you can *majorly* screw yourself.

> So Peter's VM used
> is 61272k - 45500k + x = 15772k + x, where x is `du -sk /tmp`.

No it's not; the amount of VM used is the sum of VSZ in the process
listing.  it has *NOTHING* to do with:
	(1) the size of the MFS
	(2) the amount of space used in the MFS.


cgd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------