[andreasvc]

I agree of course, but I think the current situation is worse. Applications can allocate more than the amount of physical memory, at which point the system can become unusable. If on the other hand an allocation would have been refused at an earlier stage, there would have been no critical data to drop.

I guess I want to argue that with the currently typical amounts of RAM, all critical data should fit in RAM and stay there. The idea of virtual memory was to abstract over the difference between RAM and disk, but perhaps this has become a harmful abstraction now that RAM is big enough while the disadvantage of slow disks remains. RAM and disks are fundamentally different parts of the memory hierarchy, and should be treated completely differently by applications.

[jeremycole]

There's also copy-on-write to consider. If you actually had to allocate real memory-backed pages for every allocation a process made, had the right to, but never modified, the size of each process would be a lot larger. For example, if a process consumes 1GB of memory and forks a child, the child has access to the same 1GB of memory, but it doesn't really consume 1GB of memory. It has mapped a bunch of copy-on-write pages from its parent, and when either of them next modify those pages, the real memory is allocated.

If they never modify those CoW pages, they can both happily keep using the same copy of the page in memory, and you can have two 1GB processes using a total of e.g. 1.01GB of real memory.

This is very useful in practice, but it means that the system needs the ability to over-commit memory allocations (allow CoW allocations etc., when there is no actual memory available to back it), and over-commit currently, and probably should, requires swap (some place to dump pages in case an over-committed allocation comes calling).

[lawnchair_larry]

Overcommit does not use or require swap. You can have overcommit enabled on linux and not be using swap at all.

[wmf]

But then you may meet the OOM killer.

[lawnchair_larry]

Again, that has nothing to do with swap being enabled.

[wmf]

My understanding is that swap would delay or prevent the OOM killer from kicking in. Is that wrong?

[lawnchair_larry]

If you have 8GB of ram and 8GB of swap, the OOM killer will kick in at 16GB.

If you have 16GB of ram, and 0GB of swap, the OOM killer will kick in at 16GB.