[libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Set swap_hard_limit before hard_limit
Setting hard_limit larger than previous swap_hard_limit must fail, it's not that good if one wants to change the swap_hard_limit and hard_limit together. E.g. % virsh memtune rhel6 hard_limit : 1000000 soft_limit : 1000000 swap_hard_limit: 1000000 % virsh memtune rhel6 --hard-limit 1000020 --soft-limit 1000020 \ --swap-hard-limit 1000020 --live This patch reoder the limits setting to set the swap_hard_limit first. --- src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c index dc04d13..1abdd27 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c @@ -6625,43 +6625,43 @@ qemuDomainSetMemoryParameters(virDomainPtr dom, for (i = 0; i < nparams; i++) { virTypedParameterPtr param = ¶ms[i]; - if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_HARD_LIMIT)) { + if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SWAP_HARD_LIMIT)) { if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE) { - rc = virCgroupSetMemoryHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); + rc = virCgroupSetMemSwapHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); if (rc != 0) { virReportSystemError(-rc, "%s", - _("unable to set memory hard_limit tunable")); + _("unable to set swap_hard_limit tunable")); ret = -1; } } - if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) { - persistentDef->mem.hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; + persistentDef->mem.swap_hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; } - } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SOFT_LIMIT)) { + } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_HARD_LIMIT)) { if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE) { - rc = virCgroupSetMemorySoftLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); + rc = virCgroupSetMemoryHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); if (rc != 0) { virReportSystemError(-rc, "%s", - _("unable to set memory soft_limit tunable")); + _("unable to set memory hard_limit tunable")); ret = -1; } } if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) { - persistentDef->mem.soft_limit = params[i].value.ul; + persistentDef->mem.hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; } - } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SWAP_HARD_LIMIT)) { + } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SOFT_LIMIT)) { if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE) { - rc = virCgroupSetMemSwapHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); + rc = virCgroupSetMemorySoftLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); if (rc != 0) { virReportSystemError(-rc, "%s", - _("unable to set swap_hard_limit tunable")); + _("unable to set memory soft_limit tunable")); ret = -1; } } + if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) { - persistentDef->mem.swap_hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; + persistentDef->mem.soft_limit = params[i].value.ul; } } } -- 1.7.7.3
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 05:03:52PM +0800, Osier Yang wrote:
Setting hard_limit larger than previous swap_hard_limit must fail, it's not that good if one wants to change the swap_hard_limit and hard_limit together. E.g.
% virsh memtune rhel6 hard_limit : 1000000 soft_limit : 1000000 swap_hard_limit: 1000000
% virsh memtune rhel6 --hard-limit 1000020 --soft-limit 1000020 \ --swap-hard-limit 1000020 --live
This patch reoder the limits setting to set the swap_hard_limit first. --- src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c index dc04d13..1abdd27 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c @@ -6625,43 +6625,43 @@ qemuDomainSetMemoryParameters(virDomainPtr dom, for (i = 0; i < nparams; i++) { virTypedParameterPtr param = ¶ms[i];
Does this patch make any difference if the order of elements of params[] doesn't change?
- if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_HARD_LIMIT)) { + if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SWAP_HARD_LIMIT)) { if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE) { - rc = virCgroupSetMemoryHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); + rc = virCgroupSetMemSwapHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); if (rc != 0) { virReportSystemError(-rc, "%s", - _("unable to set memory hard_limit tunable")); + _("unable to set swap_hard_limit tunable")); ret = -1; } } - if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) { - persistentDef->mem.hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; + persistentDef->mem.swap_hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; } - } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SOFT_LIMIT)) { + } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_HARD_LIMIT)) { if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE) { - rc = virCgroupSetMemorySoftLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); + rc = virCgroupSetMemoryHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); if (rc != 0) { virReportSystemError(-rc, "%s", - _("unable to set memory soft_limit tunable")); + _("unable to set memory hard_limit tunable")); ret = -1; } }
if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) { - persistentDef->mem.soft_limit = params[i].value.ul; + persistentDef->mem.hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; } - } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SWAP_HARD_LIMIT)) { + } else if (STREQ(param->field, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_SOFT_LIMIT)) { if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE) { - rc = virCgroupSetMemSwapHardLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); + rc = virCgroupSetMemorySoftLimit(group, params[i].value.ul); if (rc != 0) { virReportSystemError(-rc, "%s", - _("unable to set swap_hard_limit tunable")); + _("unable to set memory soft_limit tunable")); ret = -1; } } + if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) { - persistentDef->mem.swap_hard_limit = params[i].value.ul; + persistentDef->mem.soft_limit = params[i].value.ul; } } } -- 1.7.7.3
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
-- Thanks, Hu Tao
On 2012年07月12日 17:19, Hu Tao wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 05:03:52PM +0800, Osier Yang wrote:
Setting hard_limit larger than previous swap_hard_limit must fail, it's not that good if one wants to change the swap_hard_limit and hard_limit together. E.g.
% virsh memtune rhel6 hard_limit : 1000000 soft_limit : 1000000 swap_hard_limit: 1000000
% virsh memtune rhel6 --hard-limit 1000020 --soft-limit 1000020 \ --swap-hard-limit 1000020 --live
This patch reoder the limits setting to set the swap_hard_limit first. --- src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c index dc04d13..1abdd27 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c @@ -6625,43 +6625,43 @@ qemuDomainSetMemoryParameters(virDomainPtr dom, for (i = 0; i< nparams; i++) { virTypedParameterPtr param =¶ms[i];
Does this patch make any difference if the order of elements of params[] doesn't change?
Oops, right. I rushed, except qemu, lxc openvz also support memtune, means I need a v2 anyway. Thanks. Osier
On 07/12/2012 11:37 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
On 2012年07月12日 17:19, Hu Tao wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 05:03:52PM +0800, Osier Yang wrote:
Setting hard_limit larger than previous swap_hard_limit must fail, it's not that good if one wants to change the swap_hard_limit and hard_limit together. E.g.
% virsh memtune rhel6 hard_limit : 1000000 soft_limit : 1000000 swap_hard_limit: 1000000
% virsh memtune rhel6 --hard-limit 1000020 --soft-limit 1000020 \ --swap-hard-limit 1000020 --live
This patch reoder the limits setting to set the swap_hard_limit first. --- src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c index dc04d13..1abdd27 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c @@ -6625,43 +6625,43 @@ qemuDomainSetMemoryParameters(virDomainPtr dom, for (i = 0; i< nparams; i++) { virTypedParameterPtr param =¶ms[i];
Does this patch make any difference if the order of elements of params[] doesn't change?
Oops, right. I rushed, except qemu, lxc openvz also support memtune, means I need a v2 anyway. Thanks.
One more thing. If the limit goes down it has to be set in the order: 1. soft_limit 2. hard_limit 3. swap_hard_limit because otherwise you'll get to the same problems. I had something like this in mind: for each parameter -- check if it can be set (according to the current values): - yes) set it - no) check if the parameter blocking the current one is being changed as well: - no) fail - yes) prefer the parameter blocking the current one Few more approaches (just to get it out of my head): - set the values twice with ignoring errors in the first pass (ugly) - check and sort all the parameters and then change them (overhead?) - set the values to max/unlimited and then set them in a predefined order (soft, hard, memsw). Have a nice day, Martin
participants (3)
-
Hu Tao -
Martin Kletzander -
Osier Yang