linux-kernel - Re: Memory overcommit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091030141250.GQ9640@random.random>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:12:50 +0100
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Vedran Furač <vedran.furac@...il.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	minchan.kim@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Memory overcommit

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 02:53:33PM +0100, Vedran Furač 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/