Marco Colombo wrote:
> > Does the kernel actually allocate all of these and just "not use
> > them" -- i.e. are these really cases of where space is allocated and then goes
> > unused? I'd think all of these are cases where the kernel was expecting to
> Yes. Everytime you malloc() something, use it, and no one else reclaims
> that RAM. Swap space is not used. Why allocate it at malloc() time?
> Just allocate it when neeed.
--- "malloc"? You were talking kmalloc and the kernel reserving space for its *internal* data structures. Does the kernel mark address space withing itself (kernel space) as 'available' but not actually claim a physical page to map it to? I really really hope not.
> > But we already do bookkeeping for 'free' > > memory, 'used' memory, 'shared' memory -- would adding 'committed' or 'reserved' > > memory really be that much more difficult or costly? > > 'reserved' memory? You mean mlock()ed one? Of course it does bookkeeping > of it. --- Reserved meaning removed from the 'free' pool -- that there is a guaranteed space in the physical mem/swap pool (whther or not the mapping has actually taken place).
-- Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI firstname.lastname@example.org | Voice: (650) 933-5338
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST