Arch Linux

Llama

Banned

From: St.-Petersburg, Russia

Registered: 2008-03-03

Posts: 1,379

Post-upgrade RAM visibility

Hi,

I've upgraded RAM on my notebook (Intel GM965) from 1G to 2G. BIOS does see it, but the system apparently isn't quite certain:

$ ls -lh /proc/kcore
-r-------- 1 root root 888M Apr 11 20:23 /proc/kcore
$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       2065668     803260    1262408          0      44824     466880
-/+ buffers/cache:     291556    1774112
Swap:      4457996          0    4457996

Arch i686, stock kernel 2.6.31.

Why is /proc/kcore file shorter than it should be?

flamelab

Member

From: Athens, Hellas (Greece)

Registered: 2007-12-26

Posts: 2,160

Re: Post-upgrade RAM visibility

It's ... (:O ) 128 Terabytes here

~ $ ls -lh /proc/kcore
-r-------- 1 root root 128T Apr 11 19:56 /proc/kcore

What's this for ? (kcore) ?

Llama

Banned

From: St.-Petersburg, Russia

Registered: 2008-03-03

Posts: 1,379

Re: Post-upgrade RAM visibility

What's this for ? (kcore) ?

Everything is a file, unless it's a process . In Linux kcore file represents RAM, so it's size should be equal to RAM size.

loafer

Member

From: the pub

Registered: 2009-04-14

Posts: 1,772

Re: Post-upgrade RAM visibility

My kcore file is less than a third the size of my RAM. Both free and Gnome system monitor show the correct amount.

---

All men have stood for freedom...
For freedom is the man that will turn the world upside down.
Gerrard Winstanley.

smakked

Member

From: Gold Coast , Australia

Registered: 2008-08-14

Posts: 420

Re: Post-upgrade RAM visibility

Give this a try

du /proc/kcore --block-size=1M

that should read it correctly

---

Certified Android Junkie
Arch 64

thisoldman

Member

From: Pittsburgh

Registered: 2009-04-25

Posts: 1,172

Re: Post-upgrade RAM visibility

For a better indication of memory, try 'cat /proc/meminfo'.  You should recognize some of the numbers as the same as those reported by top or htop.

Finding anything not over my head about the process file system (procfs) is difficult.  There's a few complaints on the interweb that the proc manpage is inaccurate about /proc/kcore – kcore's size is no longer "the size of physical  memory  (RAM)  plus 4KB."  I wonder if 64-bit kernels have 'ls -l' always report the size of kcore as 128T.  That's how my system reports it.