On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:40:52AM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 03:19:36PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > > I think that either option (1) or (3) would be the most reasonable -- > > > maybe trying (1) first and falling back to (3) if necessary. If anyone > > > has an opinion on this, or can think of other options, I would > > > appreciate the input. > > Was systemd-oomd enabled by default for a specific reason? The kernel > > is quite able to handle oom situations itself, and has been for years, > > so while I'm not trying to suggest systemd-oomd is without any use > > case, I'm skeptical that systemd-oomd should be enabled *by default*. > > I think it's more likely to behave better when enabled to address a > > specific system use case, and leave the default behavior of handling > > oom to the kernel. > No what the kernel does is it starts stuttering, the system becomes > unresponsive and eventually needs a hard reset maybe. > The bug reports we see show that systemd-oomd is working correctly: > The browser gets killed, the system remains responsive without having > become unresponsive as would be the usual case. If systemd-oomd is killing in-use processes before the user is bothered by the sluggishness, then it's not working correctly. It's difficult to ensure the oom killer is working "correctly" given such a soft definition, but I agree that the increase in user complaints on 22.04 indicate we haven't found the right balance yet. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
