Subject: Re: vm size wrongly reported
To: Lars Heidieker <email@example.com>
From: Richard Earnshaw <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/05/2003 10:44:44
> > >I have not trouble with that, beside I'm using current, it is just t=
> > >the numbers did not look right to me.
> > they're right from a certain point of view. the problem is that lots=
> > of people have different points of view. :)
> true, what they currently give is a rough (nearly allways to small) app=
> of the memory that is privat for the process,
> as mapping /dev/null or mapping with the flag MAP_ANON will break this
Indeed, running gcc-3 I often see top reporting the total vm SIZE as ~5M,=
yet it is also reporting the RSS as 15M (and it would be 40M if I had mor=
RAM)! That's clearly ridiculous.