If the ability to release the storage on-demand works correctly (and this is a big if) there’s no reason to limit to 10%. What benefit will that have? If the system works well, deleting the data eagerly accomplishes nothing.
I think the actual system uses filesystem utilization as a form of “disk pressure”, to the point where once it’s above a certain threshold (say, 90% used), it should start evicting least-recently-used data. It doesn’t wait for 100%, because it takes some nonzero amount of time to free the cache. But limiting the cache size arbitrarily doesn’t seem useful.
It gets more complicated when there are multiple caches (maybe some third party apps has their own caches) and you need to prioritize who gets evicted, but it’s still the same thing in theory.
But yeah, if the system isn’t working right and cache isn’t seen as cache, or if it can’t evict it for some reason, then this all goes out the window. I’m only claiming it’s good in theory.
I think the actual system uses filesystem utilization as a form of “disk pressure”, to the point where once it’s above a certain threshold (say, 90% used), it should start evicting least-recently-used data. It doesn’t wait for 100%, because it takes some nonzero amount of time to free the cache. But limiting the cache size arbitrarily doesn’t seem useful.
It gets more complicated when there are multiple caches (maybe some third party apps has their own caches) and you need to prioritize who gets evicted, but it’s still the same thing in theory.
But yeah, if the system isn’t working right and cache isn’t seen as cache, or if it can’t evict it for some reason, then this all goes out the window. I’m only claiming it’s good in theory.