From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 15 16:48:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19039 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:48:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp20.portal.net.au [202.12.71.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19030 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:48:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA02265; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:14:57 +0930 (CST) Message-Id: <199710152344.JAA02265@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: dg@root.com cc: Mike Smith , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Odd out-of-swap condition; ideas? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:59:36 MST." <199710151559.IAA06427@implode.root.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:14:54 +0930 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > >The conclusion reached from this is that the display process has > >somehow managed to own a lot of swap that wasn't attached to it. > > Are you sure that the display proc had no children (which may have gone > away when the system killed off the parent)? Over its lifetime it would have forked a lot of children (about 2-3 every 5 seconds), but there were none in the 'ps' listing so I am presuming that they were reaped successfully, as they normally are. At the time of that last ps listing, there were only about 40 procs in the system total, with the display (40M) and the X server (~5M) being the two largest. One other idea that had occurred to me; does the VSZ include the size of the stack? mike