thanks a lot!!
On Dec 16, 2007 7:30 PM, Luciano Rocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:01:17PM -0300, Rafael Sisto wrote:
> > Thank you for the quick answer, but It's a college project, and I must
> > share user level memory. I also must build my own system calls...
> > But
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:01:17PM -0300, Rafael Sisto wrote:
> Thank you for the quick answer, but It's a college project, and I must
> share user level memory. I also must build my own system calls...
> But I can look what is already done and make something similar. Do you
> think shmget would do
Thank you for the quick answer, but It's a college project, and I must
share user level memory. I also must build my own system calls...
But I can look what is already done and make something similar. Do you
think shmget would do? Does it share user level memory?
greetings!
Rafael Sisto
On Dec 16
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 04:51:39PM -0300, Rafael Sisto wrote:
> Hi, Im working on a project working on linux kernel 2.6.17
> I have to share memory on user level... I have to build something like
> a server process that "exports" a portion of his virtual memory, and
> other client process may ask t
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:49:24AM -0600, Blesson Paul wrote:
> I have some confusion regarding key in shmget(). Let I
> have two shared memory variables. For the first one, I put key "99" and the
> size is 1024. Next, I put key "199" for the second variable and size 1024.
>
Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
> Hi Allan,
>
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Allan Duncan wrote:
> > OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same,
> > however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo,
> > rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel
> > h
Hi Allan,
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Allan Duncan wrote:
> OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same,
> however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo,
> rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel
> hackers like me up the garden path.
This w
OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same, however
in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, rather than
the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel hackers like me up the
garden path.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-k
Hi Albert,
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> You misunderstood what 2.2.xx kernels were reporting.
> The "shared" memory in /proc/meminfo refers to something
> completely unrelated to SysV shared memory. This is no
> longer calculated because the computation was too costly.
But the
Allan Duncan writes:
> Since the 2.4.x advent of shm as tmpfs or thereabouts,
> /proc/meminfo shows shared memory as 0. It is in
> reality not zero, and is being allocated, and shows
> up in /proc/sysvipc/shm and /proc/sys/kernel/shmall
> etc..
> Neither 2.4.6-pre5 nor 2.4.5-ac17 have the correc
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:23:09AM +0100, Thomas Foerster wrote:
> running "top" on a 2.2.18 Kernel showed me the ammount of memory shared.
>
> Now under 2.4.x "top" always displays "0" and i have mountet the
> tmpfs (if it's needed for that ?).
>
> Is shared memory gone? Is my "top" to old?! I
Hi Admin,
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
>
> I've been using the 2.2.x series successfully, latest i used was
> 2.2.19pre7. Today i upgraded to 2.4.1-ac9 and noticed that shared
> memory shows 0. I searched the list archive briefly and someone
> said the stats have been broken
> # cat /proc/meminfo
> total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached:
> Mem: 130293760 123133952 71598080 30371840 15179776
^^
It means shared process memory, not shm.
One thing to watch : PowerTweak. Seems
> For some reason shared memory is not being enabled on my system
> running kernel
> v2.4.0 (on RedHat v6.2, with all updates applied).
You are confusing System V shared memory (IPC) with VM shared memory. The
'0' for shared in /proc/meminfo means the system can't easily tell you how
mu
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For some reason shared memory is not being enabled on my system running kernel
> v2.4.0 (on RedHat v6.2, with all updates applied).
>
> Per the documentation I have this line in my /etc/fstab:
>
> none /dev/shm shm defaults 0 0
>
> Yes, I h
Try 'ipcs' and you'll see your shared mem segments info...
On 2001.01.08 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> For some reason shared memory is not being enabled on my system running kernel
> v2.4.0 (on RedHat v6.2, with all updates applied).
>
> Per the documentation I have this line in my /etc/fst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> # cat /proc/meminfo
> total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached:
> Mem: 130293760 123133952 71598080 30371840 15179776
This is not SysV/POSIX shared memory. This used to mean the memory that
was shared between processes (from l
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:11:19PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> No complaints are seen at startup, yet I still have no shared memory:
>
> # cat /proc/meminfo
> total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached:
> Mem: 130293760 123133952 71598080 3037
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> For some reason shared memory is not being enabled on my system running kernel
> v2.4.0 (on RedHat v6.2, with all updates applied).
>
> Per the documentation I have this line in my /etc/fstab:
>
> none /dev/shm shm defaults 0 0
>
> Y
> [Linus]
> > > (otherwise I'll just end up disabling shared mmap - I
> doubt anybody
> > > really uses it anyway, but it would be more polite to just support
> > > it).
>
> [Peter Rönnquist]
> > I was thinking about using mmap for shared mememory in my program,
> > but now I am reconsidering
[Linus]
> > (otherwise I'll just end up disabling shared mmap - I doubt anybody
> > really uses it anyway, but it would be more polite to just support
> > it).
[Peter Rönnquist]
> I was thinking about using mmap for shared mememory in my program,
> but now I am reconsidering. Is the System V o
21 matches
Mail list logo
