On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:40:38 +0100 Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com> wrote:
It's unfortunate that the current, buggy behavior made it look like you didn't necessarily have to worry about this. If we fix it, existing guests will fail to start right away instead of possibly crashing in the future: while that's going to be very annoying in the short run,
It breaks existing guests, so it's beyond annoying.
it's arguably better than illuding people their guests will be good in the long run while in reality we can't provide such guarantee.
Luiz mentioned the fact that you can't set the memory locking limit to "unlimited" with the current <hard_limit> element: that's something we can, and should, address. With that implemented, the administrator will have full control on the memory limit and will be able to implement the policy that best suits the use case at hand.
Asking <locked/> users to set <hard_limit> to "unlimited" is a much worse solution than automatically setting the memory lock limit to infinity in libvirt, for the reasons I outlined in my first email. PS: Still, we should have "unlimited" support for <hard_limit>