From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DCC86B0073 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:12:50 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: Memory overcommit Message-ID: <20091030141250.GQ9640@random.random> References: <4AE792B8.5020806@gmail.com> <4AE846E8.1070303@gmail.com> <4AE9068B.7030504@gmail.com> <4AE97618.6060607@gmail.com> <4AEAEFDD.5060009@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4AEAEFDD.5060009@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Vedran =?utf-8?B?RnVyYcSN?= Cc: David Rientjes , Hugh Dickins , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , minchan.kim@gmail.com, Andrew Morton List-ID: On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 02:53:33PM +0100, Vedran FuraA? wrote: > % free -m > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem: 3458 3429 29 0 102 1119 > -/+ buffers/cache: 2207 1251 > > There's plenty of memory available. Shouldn't cache be automatically > dropped (this question was in my original mail, hence the subject)? This is not about cache, cache amount is physical, this about virtual amount that can only go in ram or swap (at any later time, current time is irrelevant) vs "ram + swap". In short add more swap if you don't like overcommit and check grep Commit /proc/meminfo in case this is accounting bug... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org