On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 12:45 AM <ego.corda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > В Суб, 04/01/2020 в 08:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel пишет: > > > I'm strongly against adding of any user-space OOM killers to Fedora > > default images. Users should explicitly enable them only when needed. > > Just my 2 cents: i tested early versions of earlyoom and have weird > experience with it: it killing not Chromium or Chromium processes, > instead it killing tiny processes which it shouldn't, probably. I guess > it could kill dnf process as well easily. > > I am skeptically too about enabling such things by default, but in same > time would be nice to massively test this.
earlyoom uses oom_score to determine the victim process to SIGTERM and SIGKILL. The same metric used by the kernel oom-killer. I too have seen inexplicable kernel oom-killer invoked on processes that should not be targets: sssd, sshd, and even once systemd-journald. This is very weird and I don't have an explanation why any process with a score of 0 is getting killed before the dozens of processes with a score much higher, and yet I've seen it. It's suspicious. The nice thing about earlyoom, even though it's a hammer? It's a small hammer. It's not going to go on a wrecking ball spree. It can, and likely will, be backed out as other solutions become more useful. And the documentation reflects its oversimplification of a complex problem. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
