Stability and Memory Pressure in 8.2

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:39 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at cscott.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Michael Stone <michael at laptop.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  * We need to find out why the oom-killer is not killing things fast
>>>    enough. Based on our results, we might consider configuring
>>>    /proc/$pid/oom_adj to preferentially kill some processes (e.g., the
>>>    foreground [or background?] activities.)
>>
>> Any reason why killing first activities' processes wouldn't solve the
>> stability issue? AFAIK, we haven't seen OOM conditions without any
>> activity open.
>
> Yes, we have.  In particular, if you update your system and then leave
> it for a while, and later click the software update control panel, you
> end up OOMing in the control panel.  Sugar restarts and reports are
> that software update "works fine the second time".  So this might well
> be a sugar leak; killing 'sugar' is not good for stability.

That sounds pretty awful, do we have a ticket with precise
instructions about how to reproduce? How much time approx. need to
wait after updating sugar?

Regards,

Tomeu