Reply by Ali ●April 9, 20072007-04-09
On Apr 9, 5:41 pm, "jeniffer" <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 6, 3:21 am, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <1175745380.977754.323...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ali
> > says...
>
> > > On Apr 3, 3:04 pm, "jeniffer" <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Thank u for ur input :)
> > > > I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported. I would try the
> > > > warnings part though
>
> > > BUT why? i'm also interested to know like others that what on earth
> > > you cann't use ps with 2.4? what linux port you are trying to use?
> > > You may eliminate the unused drivers that your hardware will never
> > > use. Is mini kernel an option to you?
>
> > I think there has been a misunderstanding here.  I suspect the OP meant
> > something more like "I cannot use 2.4 and neither ps or top are
> > supported (in my setup)."
>
> > Robert
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> Thanks Robert. I meant this only. I cannot use ps and top in my
> setup .I am not saying anything about the availability/non
> availability of ps and top with 2.4 !  I have already applied mini
> kernel option. I just want to know of a tool that can give me dynamic
> memory usage of an application that cannot be run on background!


I.C. Cann't understand your point of dynamic memory;-)  Do you mean
that what memeory your process will use at runtime?
Anyway, just thought that if you area that much worried about your
memory and kernel size then how about removing the virtual memory
stuff at all. Don't know if its gonna work or not just a thought of
mine. Yeah, using physical addresses, for sure it will make life bit
hard but you maybe able to reduce the size drastically.

ali
Reply by jeniffer ●April 9, 20072007-04-09
On Apr 6, 3:21 am, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:

> In article <1175745380.977754.323...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ali
> says...
>
> > On Apr 3, 3:04 pm, "jeniffer" <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thank u for ur input :)
> > > I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported. I would try the
> > > warnings part though
>
> > BUT why? i'm also interested to know like others that what on earth
> > you cann't use ps with 2.4? what linux port you are trying to use?
> > You may eliminate the unused drivers that your hardware will never
> > use. Is mini kernel an option to you?
>
> I think there has been a misunderstanding here.  I suspect the OP meant
> something more like "I cannot use 2.4 and neither ps or top are
> supported (in my setup)."
>
> Robert
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com



Thanks Robert. I meant this only. I cannot use ps and top in my
setup .I am not saying anything about the availability/non
availability of ps and top with 2.4 !  I have already applied mini
kernel option. I just want to know of a tool that can give me dynamic
memory usage of an application that cannot be run on background!
Reply by Robert Adsett ●April 5, 20072007-04-05
In article <1175745380.977754.323170@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ali 
says...

> On Apr 3, 3:04 pm, "jeniffer" <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Thank u for ur input :)
> > I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported. I would try the
> > warnings part though
> 
> BUT why? i'm also interested to know like others that what on earth
> you cann't use ps with 2.4? what linux port you are trying to use?
> You may eliminate the unused drivers that your hardware will never
> use. Is mini kernel an option to you?


I think there has been a misunderstanding here.  I suspect the OP meant 
something more like "I cannot use 2.4 and neither ps or top are 
supported (in my setup)."

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by Ali ●April 5, 20072007-04-05
On Apr 3, 3:04 pm, "jeniffer" <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Thank u for ur input :)
> I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported. I would try the
> warnings part though


BUT why? i'm also interested to know like others that what on earth
you cann't use ps with 2.4? what linux port you are trying to use?
You may eliminate the unused drivers that your hardware will never
use. Is mini kernel an option to you?

ali
Reply by ●April 4, 20072007-04-04
In article <1175659085.225433.256230@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
jeniffer <zenith.of.perfection@gmail.com> wrote:


>ps and top have memory requirements .The busybox that I use doesnt
>have ps or top applets compiled into.I know I can compile them  into
>it.I use the file /proc/meminfo - the very file ps and top use.kill
>and top come in the Process utilities sections of busybox that can
>very well be compiled to.


And what does any of that have to do with kernel versions?


--
http://www.spinics.net/lists/
Reply by Grant Edwards ●April 4, 20072007-04-04
On 2007-04-04, jeniffer <zenith.of.perfection@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 4, 2:50 am, e...@no.spam () wrote:
>> In article <1175576663.737616.74...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> jeniffer <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported.
>>
>> Really? Just how did you come to that erroneous conclusion?
>>
>> --http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/
>
> ps and top have memory requirements. 


And you are implying that's not true for a 2.6 kernel?


> The busybox that I use doesnt have ps or top applets compiled
> into. I know I can compile them into it. I use the file
> /proc/meminfo - the very file ps and top use.kill and top come
> in the Process utilities sections of busybox that can very
> well be compiled to.


None of which answeres the question of how you came to the
conclusion that 2.4 kernels don't support ps and top.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Let's send the
                                  at               Russians defective
                               visi.com            lifestyle accessories!
Reply by jeniffer ●April 4, 20072007-04-04
On Apr 4, 2:50 am, e...@no.spam () wrote:

> In article <1175576663.737616.74...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jeniffer <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported.
>
> Really? Just how did you come to that erroneous conclusion?
>
> --http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/


ps and top have memory requirements .The busybox that I use doesnt
have ps or top applets compiled into.I know I can compile them  into
it.I use the file /proc/meminfo - the very file ps and top use.kill
and top come in the Process utilities sections of busybox that can
very well be compiled to.
Reply by ●April 3, 20072007-04-03
In article <1175576663.737616.74890@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
jeniffer <zenith.of.perfection@gmail.com> wrote:


>I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported.


Really? Just how did you come to that erroneous conclusion?

--
http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/
Reply by ●April 3, 20072007-04-03
jeniffer wrote:


> I cannot use 2.4 neither ps or top are supported. 


With all due respect, that's utter nonsense.  I'm sure that Linux has 
supported 'ps' since before version 1.0, by a sizable margin.  I 
probably still have a CD from a time before RedHat was a word, to prove 
it.  'top' may have come a bit later, but definitely before version 2.0.

[Please note and respect the F'up2]
Reply by Hadron ●April 3, 20072007-04-03
"jeniffer" <zenith.of.perfection@gmail.com> writes:


> On Apr 2, 6:31 pm, j...@franjam.org.uk (Jim Jackson) wrote:
>> In comp.arch.embedded jeniffer <zenith.of.perfect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 2.  Is there a tool with low memory footprint to find out the dynamic
>> > memory usage of applications during runtime?Applications like
>> > iptables,ebtables etc that cannot be made to run in background?
>>
>> Why would you run the iptables program in the background? And what
>> difference to memory usage would it make?
>>
>> The iptables program simply loads configuration data into the kernel
>> to control the kernel's netfilter functions.
>
>  Thanks a lot.I want to run iptables in the background (even for the
> time it takes to add a rule or display all chains) because I do a cat /
> proc/meminfo before the background application runs and while the
> application is running in the background to find out the RAM
> requirement.
> Iptables might use malloc etc ..Since it makes its own data structures
> before doing a final setsockopt() on the kernel,I think it would make
> difference to  memory usage.
>


You do a meminfo check before and after running iptables in order to get
the memory usage of iptables. Fine. But why do you think the memory reqs
are different? Also, how can you be sure that Iptables is "done" when
you have it in the bg when you run the meminfo check the second time?