Re: 2.4.16 memory badness (fixed?)

From: Helge Hafting (
Date: Wed Dec 12 2001 - 04:04:18 EST

"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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:22 EST