| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20090929085905.c7be9d82.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:59:05 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> To: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Wrong Vmalloc numbers in /proc/meminfo On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:56:08 +0200 Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> wrote: > On Monday 28 September 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB > > > VmallocUsed: 340084 kB > > > VmallocChunk: 34359387131 kB > > > > > > Is it me or are VmallocTotal and VmallocChunk off by a factor 10,000 > > > or so? > > > > I'm sorry I misunderstand your 10,000 implies. > > What I meant is: is the Vmalloc area really 32 *terra*bytes in size? > Seems rather big for a system with only 2GB RAM. > VmallocTotal means "available address space size for VMALLOC" It's fixed size as VMALLOC_END - VMALLOC_START. VmallocChunk just means "free space in VMALLOC area". Both of them are not related to size of RAM. > I'd never noticed it before and it looks strange to me, but I guess it's > just the result of having 64-bit addressing: a theoretically addressable > area most of which will never actually be used? > you're right. Most of space will never used. Regards, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists