On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 19:55 -0400, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
William L. Maltby wrote on Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:45:10 -0400:
24729 127m 32m 15m 4.3 94m evolution
It looks to me like top is using a different definition of swap. If you compare you see that SWAP shows the difference between VIRT and RES almost exactly. However, if there is no or almost no swap usage how can there be a difference? Only explanation: it shows what *could* be swapped immediately without affecting current activity. Have you tried making it heavily swap and then checked if you see a difference (whichever)? Theoretically, it shouldn't make a difference as it doesn't seem to differentiate between "swapped" and "really swapped".
Kai
Kai,
I think you hit the nail on the head. According to man ps, the swapsize shown by ps is exactly what you say.. the amount of memory it would take if the process were swapped out.
Sam and Kai, it sure sounds plausible. One of the great programming productivity gains made was "re-use of code", and not just by calling a module. It could also include physically copying code. Either way, Kai makes it sound as if top might be using the same code fragment as ps uses to report swap.
If this were a democracy, Kai's theory wins! ;-)
<snip sig stuff>