Thank you both for your responses. I still have not figured this out,
but I appreciate your replies. I wasn't sure if this list was still
around, but I thought I would try to liven it up with a question ;-)
All the best,
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Gayathri Swaminathan
Think Jamie is right.
I have observed behaviour were this file grows based on accessed memory
(would this be kernel shared mem params?)
But it is definitely not just size of physical RAM+4KB on a machine.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Astarta <astarta(a)rat.ru> wrote:
> Jamie Levy wrote:
>> I know this list has been rather quiet for a while... so I might as
>> well ask a question :-)
> I really thought that this list is completely dead :-)
>> This does not seem to be the case, however, when I do a listing in
>> /proc/kcore on my machine (F8) which has 2 GB of memory:
>> ls -lh /proc/kcore
>> -r-------- 1 root root 897M 2008-08-01 19:05 /proc/kcore
>> I have confirmed the same type of results on other machines to which I
>> have access. I also do not seem to have the kcore.h file on my system
>> (and I have kernel-devel installed), since it is a zero byte file:
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-07-21 02:05
> As far as I know, the size of kcore is equal not to the size of _all_
> physical memory installed on the machine, but just to the amount of memory
> accessible by kernel.
> Your kernel seems to be compiled with HIGHMEM support, and if you do `ls
> -l /proc/kcore` you see your LOWMEM size, the real memory that the kernel
> uses. That the reason why the difference you mentioned comes.
> Someone will correct me, if I'm wrong :)
>> All the best,
>> -Jamie Levy
>> Fedora-women-list mailing list
> with best regards,
> Fadeeva Marina.
> Fedora-women-list mailing list
Computer Science Dept