Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KDEEarlyOOM > > == Summary == > As [[Changes/EnableEarlyoom|Fedora Workstation did in F32]], install > earlyoom package, and enable it by default. If both RAM and swap go below > 10% free, earlyoom issues SIGTERM to the process with the largest > oom_score. If both RAM and swap go below 5% free, earlyoom issues SIGKILL > to the process with the largest oom_score. 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. I am opposed to this change, for the same reasons I was opposed to EarlyOOM to begin with: this solution kills processes under arbitrary conditions that are neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent a swap thrashing collapse (i.e., it can both kill processes unnecessarily (false positives) and fail to kill processes when it would be necessary to prevent swap thrashing (false negatives)). It is also unclear that it can prevent full OOM (both RAM and swap completely full) in all cases, due to EarlyOOM being a userspace process that races with the memory-consuming processes and that may end up not getting scheduled due to the very impending OOM condition that it is trying to prevent. I strongly believe that this kernel problem can only be solved within the kernel, by a synchronous (hence race-free) hook on all allocations. > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:bcotton|Ben Cotton]] > * Email: bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx Why is this not owned by Rex Dieter and/or some other KDE SIG member? Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ 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
