memory reported less than installed

[David Fox]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM, NoOp <glgxg at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> cat /proc/meminfo
>
> gives a pretty good breakdown.
>
> cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal:      1018608 kB
> MemFree:         14436 kB
> Buffers:         11068 kB
> Cached:         220724 kB
> SwapCached:     217048 kB
> Active:         742836 kB
> Inactive:       162468 kB
> HighTotal:      113852 kB
> HighFree:          360 kB
> LowTotal:       904756 kB
> LowFree:         14076 kB
> SwapTotal:     1502036 kB
> SwapFree:       780640 kB
> Dirty:             660 kB
> Writeback:           0 kB
> AnonPages:      621428 kB
> Mapped:          53904 kB
> Slab:            20072 kB
> SReclaimable:     8504 kB
> SUnreclaim:      11568 kB
> PageTables:       4028 kB
> NFS_Unstable:        0 kB
> Bounce:              0 kB
> CommitLimit:   2011340 kB
> Committed_AS:  1993512 kB
> VmallocTotal:   114680 kB
> VmallocUsed:      6700 kB
> VmallocChunk:   107912 kB


Here's mine:

dfox at newbox:/storage$ cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal:      1932840 kB
MemFree:         15280 kB
Buffers:           704 kB
Cached:         738240 kB
SwapCached:       3028 kB
Active:        1221348 kB
Inactive:       594140 kB
SwapTotal:     1951888 kB
SwapFree:      1943552 kB
Dirty:           94956 kB
Writeback:          40 kB
AnonPages:     1076452 kB
Mapped:         148348 kB
Slab:            36540 kB
SReclaimable:    19448 kB
SUnreclaim:      17092 kB
PageTables:      17152 kB
NFS_Unstable:        0 kB
Bounce:              0 kB
CommitLimit:   2918308 kB
Committed_AS:  1745652 kB
VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB
VmallocUsed:     50696 kB
VmallocChunk: 34359687027 kB

1932840 is a bit odd. I'm running 64 bit hardy. Could the difference
that others are reported be the difference in kernel size for 32 bit
versus 64 bit kernels? Or is this caused by the stolen nvidia memory
(or both)?

The vmalloc stuff must be memory + swap size, but calculations are off
II get a different figure if I add both the total ram + total swap
figures together).