Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Robbie Harwood <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> "John M. Harris Jr" <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On Friday, January 3, 2020 1:51:00 PM MST Robbie Harwood wrote: >>>> Robbie Harwood <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnableEarlyoom >>>>>> >>>>>> == Summary == >>>>>> Install earlyoom package, and enable it by default. This will cause >>>>>> the kernel oomkiller to trigger sooner, but will not affect which >>>>>> process it chooses to kill off. The idea is to recover from out of >>>>>> memory situations sooner, rather than the typical complete system hang >>>>>> in which the user has no other choice but to force power off. >>>>>> >>>>>> # enable earlyoom by default on workstation >>>>>> enable earlyoom.service >>>>>> </pre> >>>>> >>>>> The OOM killer is a kernel function. I have no opinion on this proposal >>>>> as it stands, but I would like it to include an explanation of why this >>>>> requires a service in userspace to fix. >>>> >>>> Another thought. Wouldn't some of the pain here be alleviated by >>>> setting vm.swappiness=0? Currently it seems to be 60, which results >>>> in somewhat aggressive swap use; 1 seems better (minimal swapping >>>> without disabling), while 0 will disable it for general use (while >>>> preserving it for hibernation). This would at least improve the disk >>>> thrashing during OOM situations. >>> >>> To clarify, according to the Workstation group, hibernation isn't even >>> supported. >> >> If that's true - and I don't know how I'd check it, so I didn't - we >> should revisit enabling swap in the default install, and *definitely* >> should remove the warning for not having it from anaconda. > > It's not correct that the Workstation working group doesn't want to > see it supported, it's a question of whether and to what degree it can > be supported, and making sure users have expectations proper set. I > wouldn't want users thinking it'll work by advertising that it does, > and then it eats their data. I think enabling it by default very strongly suggests it's supported, regardless of what the intentions are. I have no quarrel with the kernel team in either direction they wish to decide (supported or non), but if it's non-supported, it shouldn't look like it's supported. > As for swap size options including no swap, and maybe swap-on-ZRAM: > https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/120 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731978 > > There are all kinds of useful and necessary discussions to have there > (rather than here). The links are appreciated; I was not aware of these discussions and will follow them. However, since we're discussing behavior of the system under heavy load, I think how we handle swap (the thing that makes it slow down when you're low on memory...) is extremely relevant. Thanks, --Robbie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
