#1087288 atop: Should not have oom_score_adj adjustment by default

Package:
atop
Source:
atop
Description:
Monitor for system resources and process activity
Submitter:
Witold Baryluk
Date:
2026-08-12 07:39:04 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#1087288#5
Date:
2024-11-10 19:40:59 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Maintainer,

$ cat /proc/$(pidof atop)/oom_score_adj
-999
$

This is highly unusual, and not justified. In no way atop is a critical
component, and if there is a memory leak in it, that lead it so so much
memory usage (because normally atop uses almost no memory), you are in a
really big trouble when using -999 adjustement. Just let it be killed,
and systemd handle restart of it.

Maybe giving it something like -100 oom score adjustuement would be ok,
but I think leaving it at zero (or maybe even slightly positive +100)
is the better way.
#1087288#10
Date:
2024-11-10 20:25:49 UTC
From:
To:
Control: tags -1 upstream

Would you might take this upstream yourself? I think that discussion is
better directly taken wiht upstream.

Greetings
Marc
#1087288#17
Date:
2024-11-11 07:49:01 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Marc.

I asumed that this oom score change is done in the Debian package, maybe
in systemd unit. But it could be coming from upstream (atop is running
as root, so maybe it is self adjusting on startup).

I will check the debian package source and check with upstream.

Thanks.
#1087288#22
Date:
2024-11-11 14:46:35 UTC
From:
To:
See upstream commit 7d1c32a3ce69be87689de763777ad78b9b54e8fe (Aug 9
2023), changing from -1000 to -999. There is no preceeding commit that
mentions oom (git ChangeLog in the release tarball starts only 2021), so
I guess this has been in place for quite a while.

Greetings
Marc
#1087288#27
Date:
2026-08-12 07:36:00 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

Did you discuss this upstream in the mean time? What was the result of
the discussion?

Greetings
Marc
#1087288#30
Date:
2026-08-12 07:36:00 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

Did you discuss this upstream in the mean time? What was the result of
the discussion?

Greetings
Marc