On Tue 03-09-24 21:15:59, Yafang Shao wrote: [...] > I completely agree with your point. However, in the real world, things > don't always work as expected, which is why it's crucial to ensure the > OOM killer is effective during system thrashing. Unfortunately, the > kernel's OOM killer doesn't always perform as expected, particularly > under heavy thrashing. This is one reason why user-space OOM killers > like oomd exist. I do undestand your point. On the other hand over a long time seeing all different usecases we have concluded that the OOM killer should be really conservative last resort. More agressive OOM policies should be implemented by userspace to prevent from regressions in other usecases. That doesn't really mean improvements to the kernel oom killer are not welcome or impossible. The bar is just quite hard as the wide variety of workloads is really hard to support. Heavy trashing is one example. Different workloads will have a different understanding what that means actually. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
