(In reply to comment #506)
> After testing the patches intensively, I have to say that although they do
> improve the situation, they do it only slightly. I guess the best solution is
> still disabling swap.
>
It does help initially but not always. Under memory crunch, I found my laptop completely unresponsive even though swap was off (RAM is 3GiB)
> Also, what's the idea of having a swappiness tunable if it doesn't work? I
> can
> set it to 0, and even though I have only 70% of physical memory in use the
> system starts swapping to disk.
That's weird. On my box, it does work the way it is designed. I have overall concluded that the default value of 60 is correct. If there is a buggy application, that should be fixed. I wouldn't be interested in OOMs on my box.
(In reply to comment #506)
> After testing the patches intensively, I have to say that although they do
> improve the situation, they do it only slightly. I guess the best solution is
> still disabling swap.
>
It does help initially but not always. Under memory crunch, I found my laptop completely unresponsive even though swap was off (RAM is 3GiB)
> Also, what's the idea of having a swappiness tunable if it doesn't work? I
> can
> set it to 0, and even though I have only 70% of physical memory in use the
> system starts swapping to disk.
That's weird. On my box, it does work the way it is designed. I have overall concluded that the default value of 60 is correct. If there is a buggy application, that should be fixed. I wouldn't be interested in OOMs on my box.