On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 01:56:15PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 10:52 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 08:14:02PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
+# If enabled, libvirt will not attempt to change process limits (as +# configured with the max_processes, max_files and max_core settings +# below) itself but will instead expect an external entity to perform +# this task.
Can't users simply not set max_core, max_files, etc already ?
That works for things that are static and have a corresponding configuration option in qemu.conf, but the memory locking limit is dynamic, per-VM and needs to change as devices are added and removed from the guest.
I think it is preferrable to have flags tailored specifically to the individual limits, not a global flag. Otherwise you can end up in a case where you want to disable the memory limits, but keep the other limits set which is impossible with this global flag.
Since what I'm interested in is the memory locking limit, I guess I could turn this into
max_memlock_external = 1
or even
max_memlock = "external"
with "dynamic" being the other accepted value, which would be the default and would behave as libvirt does today.
Do you think that would work better?
I think that would be better, as it has clearly defined scope which we can maintain more accurately long term. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|