Subject: Re: vm size wrongly reported
To: Lars Heidieker <>
From: Richard Earnshaw <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/05/2003 10:44:44
> > >I have not trouble with that, beside I'm using current, it is just t=
he fact
> > >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
> approximation.

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=
e =

RAM)!  That's clearly ridiculous.