From: Martin Hicks Working on some code lately I've been getting huge values for "Cached". The cause is that get_page_cache_size() is an approximate value, and for a sufficiently small returned value of get_page_cache_size() the value underflows. Signed-off-by: Martin Hicks Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- 25-akpm/fs/proc/proc_misc.c | 7 ++++++- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -puN fs/proc/proc_misc.c~meminfo-add-cached-underflow-check fs/proc/proc_misc.c --- 25/fs/proc/proc_misc.c~meminfo-add-cached-underflow-check Mon Apr 4 15:06:38 2005 +++ 25-akpm/fs/proc/proc_misc.c Mon Apr 4 15:10:24 2005 @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ static int meminfo_read_proc(char *page, unsigned long committed; unsigned long allowed; struct vmalloc_info vmi; + long cached; get_page_state(&ps); get_zone_counts(&active, &inactive, &free); @@ -140,6 +141,10 @@ static int meminfo_read_proc(char *page, allowed = ((totalram_pages - hugetlb_total_pages()) * sysctl_overcommit_ratio / 100) + total_swap_pages; + cached = get_page_cache_size() - total_swapcache_pages - i.bufferram; + if (cached < 0) + cached = 0; + get_vmalloc_info(&vmi); /* @@ -172,7 +177,7 @@ static int meminfo_read_proc(char *page, K(i.totalram), K(i.freeram), K(i.bufferram), - K(get_page_cache_size()-total_swapcache_pages-i.bufferram), + K(cached), K(total_swapcache_pages), K(active), K(inactive), _