On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 12:45 AM <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
В Суб, 04/01/2020 в 08:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel пишет:
> I'm strongly against adding of any user-space OOM killers to Fedora
> default images. Users should explicitly enable them only when needed.
Just my 2 cents: i tested early versions of earlyoom and have weird
experience with it: it killing not Chromium or Chromium processes,
instead it killing tiny processes which it shouldn't, probably. I guess
it could kill dnf process as well easily.
I am skeptically too about enabling such things by default, but in same
time would be nice to massively test this.
earlyoom uses oom_score to determine the victim process to SIGTERM and
SIGKILL. The same metric used by the kernel oom-killer. I too have
seen inexplicable kernel oom-killer invoked on processes that should
not be targets: sssd, sshd, and even once systemd-journald. This is
very weird and I don't have an explanation why any process with a
score of 0 is getting killed before the dozens of processes with a
score much higher, and yet I've seen it. It's suspicious.
The nice thing about earlyoom, even though it's a hammer? It's a small
hammer. It's not going to go on a wrecking ball spree. It can, and
likely will, be backed out as other solutions become more useful. And
the documentation reflects its oversimplification of a complex