Hi
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:48 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 03:28:08PM +0200, marcandre.lureau(a)redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau(a)redhat.com>
>
> When a domain is configured with 'shared' memory backing:
>
> <memoryBacking>
> <access mode='shared'/>
> </memoryBacking>
>
> But no explicit NUMA configuration, let's configure a shared memory
> backend associated with default -numa.
> diff --git a/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/fd-memory-no-numa-topology.args
b/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/fd-memory-no-numa-topology.args
> index bd88daaa3b..400fb39cc6 100644
> --- a/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/fd-memory-no-numa-topology.args
> +++ b/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/fd-memory-no-numa-topology.args
> @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ QEMU_AUDIO_DRV=none \
> -m 14336 \
> -mem-prealloc \
> -smp 8,sockets=8,cores=1,threads=1 \
> +-object memory-backend-file,id=ram-node,\
> +mem-path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/ram/libvirt/qemu/-1-instance-00000092/ram-node,\
> +share=yes,size=15032385536 \
> +-numa node,nodeid=0,memdev=ram-node \
I'm not at all convinced it is safe todo this. We've been burnt in the
past by adding use of memory-backend objects causing migration to break
commit f309db1f4d51009bad0d32e12efc75530b66836b
Author: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
Date: Thu Dec 18 12:36:48 2014 +0100
qemu: Create memory-backend-{ram,file} iff needed
Libvirt BZ:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175397
QEMU BZ:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170093
This change doesn't really feel like it is required either. If the
user wants NUMA, then the XML can just be written to request a NUMA
topology with a single node. Better to be explicit in the XML rather
than silently adding things as a side effect
Ok, let's drop this patch then. I'll modify "qemu: use
memory-backend-memfd if possible" to make use of memfd differently,
with explicit NUMA.