Re: 2.4.16 memory badness (fixed?)

[Helge Hafting]

"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