Re: [libvirt] [BUG] mlock support breakage
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:08:30PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:53:33 -0400
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> OK, you're right. I personally don't like we're putting a random cap
> on QEMU memory allocations, but if it's large enough it shouldn't be
> a problem (I hope).
The I hope part meaning, if we do find legitimate reasons for QEMU's
address space to go beyond $LARGE_NUMBER, it will be means of guests
randomly crashing when using <locked/>.
NB if we did enforce $RAM + $LARGE_NUMBER, then I'd suggest we did
set a default hard_limit universally once more, not only set a mlock
limit when using <locked/>. This would at least ensure we see consistent
(bad) behaviour rather than have edge cases that only appeared when
<locked/> was present.
We would need $LARGE_NUMBER to be much more conservative than what we
used in the past though, to avoid hitting the same problems once again.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|