Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 04:04:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 04:04:24 -0500 Received: from hermine.idb.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:57871 "HELO hermine.idb.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 04:04:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3C171D92.317ABE42@idb.hist.no> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:04:18 +0100 From: Helge Hafting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [no] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.1-pre6 i686) X-Accept-Language: no, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Edward Borasky" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.16 memory badness (fixed?) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "M. Edward Borasky" wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > I just can't understand why the kernel wouldn't tag application memory > > as being more important than buff/cache and free up some of that stuff > > when an application calls for it. I mean, it won't even use the gobs of > > swap I have. That just seems to be a plain ol' bug to me. > > It's not strictly a bug ... it's a design decision that has unfortunate > consequences. A simple fix would be to allow the system administrator to set > an upper limit on the size of the page cache. I'd say he has found a bug. Merely prioritizing cache over apps so apps go to swap is a design desicion. Killing the app for OOM reasons when there is free swap and/or cache that can be freed up _is_ a bug. Helge Hafting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/