Out of memory (oom) issues

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 09:21:26 -0500, Chris wrote:
>https://pastebin.com/EduBvYTK

Hi,

the output of "free" seems to be ok.

I can't comment the output of "smem", but IIUC it's ok, too.
IMO "top" is easier to understand.
After pushing "q", it's possible to copy the output of "top", e.g.

  PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND
 2334 root      20   0  271204  89080  30164 S   1.3  2.4 184:29.26 Xorg
19663 weremou+  20   0  331840  35588  26804 S   1.3  0.9   0:07.56 roxterm
 2693 weremou+  20   0  216372  18052  15264 S   0.3  0.5   5:17.64 parcellite
    1 root      20   0   38224   6204   3924 S   0.0  0.2   0:05.89 systemd
    2 root      20   0       0      0      0 S   0.0  0.0   0:00.06 kthreadd

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 09:22:54 -0500, Chris wrote:
>chris at localhost:~$ df -h | grep tmpfs
>tmpfs           386M   12M  374M   4% /run
>tmpfs           1.9G  348K  1.9G   1% /dev/shm
>tmpfs           5.0M  4.0K  5.0M   1% /run/lock
>tmpfs           1.9G     0  1.9G   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
>tmpfs           386M   12K  386M   1% /run/user/116
>tmpfs           386M   80K  386M   1% /run/user/1000

I don't know what user ID 116 is for, but the output seems to be ok, so
you don't need to worry about the size of tmpfs.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 09:26:31 -0500, Chris wrote:
>chris at localhost:~$ sudo hwinfo --framebuffer

My apologies, I didn't use "hwinfo" since a long time ago. This isn't
what I wanted to know. The required information is available by

  sudo hwinfo --memory

With all those IMO reasonable memory values you posted, you still suffer
from oom killer?

Regards,
Ralf