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 :|