From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from CLNT37 [172.16.0.37] by omnesysindia.com [202.140.148.138] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.83.R) for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:25:15 +0530 Message-ID: <018601c3eaeb$a1ba2150$250010ac@CLNT37> From: "Arunkumar" References: <20040204050915.59866.qmail@web9704.mail.yahoo.com> <1075874074.14153.159.camel@nighthawk> <35380000.1075874735@[10.10.2.4]> <1075875756.14153.251.camel@nighthawk> <38540000.1075876171@[10.10.2.4]> Subject: Doubt about statm_pgd_range patch Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:23:44 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: linux-mm List-ID: Hi, I had a doubt as to why the vsize reported in /proc/nn/stat and /proc/nn/statm differs. My search on the topic lead me to the details about the stam_pgd_range sucks patch (William Lee Irwin III) which is now included the latest 2.6.xxx RC mm series. I guess if i make similar changes to proc/array.c according to those patches, both stat and statm will report the vsize in the same manner - (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) with statm reporting in pages and stat reporting in bytes If this is the case can i report vsize of my process from /proc/self/stat value to be more correct than that in statm? (iam running 2.4 kernel and stat already reports vsize in this manner in 2.4 kernels right ?) Or does this patch need any other changes in kernel vm structures etc ? Thanks Arun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org