Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal (late): Enable EarlyOOM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:09 AM Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mo, 06.01.20 11:22, Michael Catanzaro (mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> So I talked to Tejun Heo about this (kernel cgroups maintainer,
> working for facebook with the people who did the PSI stuff, kernel mm
> guy). Here's the gist:
>
> - earlyoom might be OK as short time stopgap if people really want to
>   hurry something, as long as it watches only swap depletion (which it
>   pretty much does already). But it should then also determine what
>   to kill taking the swap use into account and little else (which it
>   apparently does not). This doesn't make any sense to have though if
>   there is no swap.
>
> - Don't bother with the OOM score the kernel calculates for processes,
>   it doesn't take the swap use into account. That said, do take the
>   configurable OOM score *adjustment* into account, so that processes
>   which set that are respected, i.e. journald, udevd, and such. (or in
>   otherwords, ignore /proc/$PID/oom_score, but respect
>   /proc/PID/oom_score_adj).
>
> - going down to 100ms poll intervals is a bad idea, 1s is sufficient,
>   maybe higher.
>
> - facebook is working on making oomd something that just works for
>   everyone, they are in the final rounds of canonicalizing the
>   configuration so that it can just work for all workloads without
>   tuning. The last bits for this to be deployable are currently being
>   done on the kernel side ("iocost"), when that's in, they'll submit
>   oomd (or simplified parts of it) to systemd, so that it's just there
>   and works. It's their expressive intention to make this something
>   that also works for desktop stuff and requires no further
>   tuning. they also will do the systemd work necessary. time frame:
>   half a year, maybe one year, but no guarantees.
>
> - oomd currently polls some parameters in time intervals too,
>   still. They are working on getting rid of that too, so that
>   everything is event based via PSI. Given their own focus on servers
>   it's not a primary goal, but still a goal.
>
> Or in other words: oomd is the way to go in the long run, developed
> alongside the kernel features backing it. You can use it already if
> you like, but there are still too many knobs for generic
> deployment. earlyoom might be a valid temporary stopgap if you want to
> hurry this.
>
> (And now I hope I paraphrased everything he said more or less
> correctly...)

Thanks for all of that, and it's consistent with the research and
discussion the working group have done in the past 6 months on this
subject. What I can't estimate is whether oomd or lmm will be better
long term for Fedora  Workstation, or if there's an advantage of them
co-existing.

And yes the idea is to go a little faster. Earlyoom is easy to take
out. And I have no problem with it coming out in fc33 if oomd or (more
likely) lmm are ready by then.


-- 
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux