Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have HP ProBook 4310s loaded with Linux Mint 7 Gloria (Jaunty 9.04) with all the latest updates and ATI Proprietary driver (for ATI Mobility Radeon 4330).

I can't identify the culprit of the leak or is it just the physical memory can't be cleared correctly.

Below is the screenshot after 3 hours of use, 1.4gb physical ram is used which doesn't tally with the sum of all processes' memory. It kept on growing over time.

I have tried server and generic kernel with xorg-server-no-backfill (and stock xorg-server as well), both to no avail.

I hope you can shed some light on this weird issue.

If further information is required, i will gladly supply.

Thank you very much,

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

This is perfectly fine. The additional memory used over time is due to disk caching. If the memory is needed for something else, the disk cache will "give it back". I guess there are no noticable performance issues?

You can see how much memory is "really" used by looking at the line that starts with

-/+ buffers/cache:
share|improve this answer
Thank you for your response. According to your explanation, the total amount of memory is really used is 1.2gb in my screenshot. However, the sum of RES(ident) memory from all the processes in top is far from 1.2gb. Correct me if i am wrong, but my SWAP is zero. I don't think disk cache is possible. Puzzled. – idyllictux Sep 19 '09 at 10:34
The screenshot tells you the following: 2.4gb is in use on your system, half of that is the disk cache, the other 1.2 are used by programs. However, that's the amount of virtual memory they use, not physical memory (RSS). (And no, virtual memory is not RAM plus swap.) You're comparing apples and oranges. Also, you should not post a screenshot where text would be sufficient. – Kim Sep 19 '09 at 11:50
Thanks Kim for your guidance and advice. I understand it better now. I was over-concerning yourself unnecessarily. I appreciate your help very much. =) – idyllictux Sep 19 '09 at 14:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .