Hello! Sorry, but i did not get any answer to the last question. Would it be OK to require <memoryBacking> and implicitly add only shared mode ? Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Senior Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia > -----Original Message----- > From: libvir-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:libvir-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Pavel Fedin > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:36 PM > To: 'Daniel P. Berrange' > Cc: 'Libvirt' > Subject: Re: [RFC] vhost-user + shared memory + NUMA > > Hello! > > > > Ok, then would it be a good compromise if we require <memoryBacking>, and only > implicitly > > add "shared" if we have vhost-user > > > devices? This way we would not change the way the guest memory is allocated. > > > > Adding shared implicitly *will* change the way guest memory is allocated, > > as it will have to use tmpfs to make it shared. > > You perhaps didn't get my idea. I meant - we will still need to specify <memoryBacking> with > huge pages, just no <numa>. Therefore, the memory will be allocated via file backend from > hugetlbfs. Only mode will be changed implicitly (private -> shared). > > > > IMHO being able to manually specify "shared" both in <numa> and > > > in <memoryBacking> would be ambiguous. > > > > That's not really any different to what we have already with NUMA. > > The top level setting would apply as the default, and the NUMA level > > settings override it if needed. > > Well, the only little drawback would be necessity to add "shared" by itself. This would > require additional patching to clients (e. g. openstack). > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Senior Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia > > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list