I intended to demonstrate that cgroups can be used to cause the kernel OOM killer to react appropriately and fast enough, implying that replacing the OOM killer is not necessary and that replacing it by a userspace OOM killer that does not account for cgroups can be undesirable. The exact same controls set with my example commands, and others, can be set with scopes as well, so this should be applicable. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200104090955.GF23195@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m8b25fd42501d780d8053fc7aa9f4e3a28a19c49f Okay, interesting. But that’s a statement from just one person, and it has to be interpreted in the context of what it is confirming; that is, that the OOM killer is “mainly concerned about kernel survival in low memory situations”, which is weaker than your claim that “their concern with kernel oom-killer is strictly with keeping the kernel functioning”. I don’t know if the OOM killer’s main purpose is to keep the kernel alive (Michal Hocko appears to think so, maybe others disagree), but it is in any case not an abuse of the OOM killer to also use it to keep userspace responsive, and there is no reason to think that kernel folks are not interested in helping achieve this goal. The only advantage I see to earlyoom so far is that it sends SIGTERM before taking further steps that will kill processes. _______________________________________________ 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
