On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 01.10.12 at 10:37, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > I noticed yesterday that the DirectMap counts at the bottom of x86_64's
> > /proc/meminfo are wrong on v3.5 and v3.6. For example, I happen to have
> > booted this laptop with mem=700M to run a test, but /p
>>> On 01.10.12 at 10:37, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I noticed yesterday that the DirectMap counts at the bottom of x86_64's
> /proc/meminfo are wrong on v3.5 and v3.6. For example, I happen to have
> booted this laptop with mem=700M to run a test, but /proc/meminfo shows
>
> DirectMap4k:4096
I was also skeptical about DirectMap results added up being less than
MemTotal. I see now, Thanks for the explanation.
Jamie Gloudon
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jamie Gloudon wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I am able to reproduce the same prob
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jamie Gloudon wrote:
>
> Interesting. I am able to reproduce the same problem as you using mem=700M,
> which shows:
>
> DirectMap4k:4096 kB
> DirectMap2M:18446744073709547520 kB
>
> However, it appears to be normal without the boot parameter:
>
> DirectMap4k:
Hey,
Interesting. I am able to reproduce the same problem as you using mem=700M,
which shows:
DirectMap4k:4096 kB
DirectMap2M:18446744073709547520 kB
However, it appears to be normal without the boot parameter:
DirectMap4k:4096 kB
DirectMap2M:15708160 kB
What does yo
Jan,
I noticed yesterday that the DirectMap counts at the bottom of x86_64's
/proc/meminfo are wrong on v3.5 and v3.6. For example, I happen to have
booted this laptop with mem=700M to run a test, but /proc/meminfo shows
DirectMap4k:4096 kB
DirectMap2M:18446744073709547520 kB
Or if
6 matches
Mail list logo
