On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 19:44 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Friday, July 17, 2020 10:06:53 AM MST Benjamin Berg wrote: > > What we achieve by killing a process is that we give the kernel more > > flexibility in how it manages the available memory. It really doesn't > > matter what you kill, all that matters is that some memory is free'ed > > up again. > > It does matter what you kill, because you're wiping out users' data and > stopping software the user intended to have run. The kernel is already more > than capable of freeing memory for itself, that's not what this Change is for > either. This Change is to abuse the OOM killer to run in non-OOM scenarios > using a userspace daemon. No, an OOM scenario from a kernel point of view means, that it has no other choice than to kill a process. You *really* need to accept that the kernel OOM killer is insufficient in many scenarios. It is only the last line of defence, that is solely concerned about whether the system is *technically* capable of running. But thrashing scenarios are exactly that, *technically* running but *practically* dead. I think it only makes sense to continue a discussion if you acknowledge the existence and really understand the scenario described here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/4/15 Benjamin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
