X, nvidia, memory

Carl Wilson carl_wilson at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 8 03:48:06 EST 2002


I would like to thank you for the significant contribution you make to this 
discussion group.  Clearly you are very knowlegable.  However, I feel 
compelled to take issue with your response to Greg O'Keefe.  Greg asked a 
perfectly reasonable question and did not deserve:

"However if you are using the closed source drivers, don't ask on 
linux-kernel or similar mailing lists, except perhaps to troll."

I'm sure you are trying to be helpful, but, IMHO this statement seems a 
little condescending.  A better response to Keith would be something like:

"I'm not sure that this mailing list is the right place for your question, 
why don't your try...etc"

This alternative response conveys the same information as the original 
without putting down the recipient.

Carl Wilson

>From: Brad Hards <bhards at bigpond.net.au>
>To: "Greg O'Keefe" <gok at netspace.net.au>, CLUG <linux at samba.org>
>Subject: Re: X, nvidia, memory
>Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:24:15 +1100
>On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:40, Greg O'Keefe wrote:
> > Can anyone explain this (top display):
> > In particular, how come it says X is using 160M of swap when I only have
> > 128M, and none of it is used? I'd say its something to do with the
> > drivers for my new geforce II MX200.
>I can't explain it with confidence, but a bit of handwaving says that SIZE 
>total mapped address space, RSS is physical space in use, and SWAP is the
>difference. So it is the driver mapping a whole lot of address space for 
>People who understand concepts like virtually contiguous memory can 
>explain this a lot better. However if you are using the closed source
>drivers, don't ask on linux-kernel or similar mailing lists, except perhaps
>to troll.

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 

More information about the linux mailing list