On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:08:30PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:53:33 -0400 > Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > OK, you're right. I personally don't like we're putting a random cap > > on QEMU memory allocations, but if it's large enough it shouldn't be > > a problem (I hope). > > The I hope part meaning, if we do find legitimate reasons for QEMU's > address space to go beyond $LARGE_NUMBER, it will be means of guests > randomly crashing when using <locked/>. NB if we did enforce $RAM + $LARGE_NUMBER, then I'd suggest we did set a default hard_limit universally once more, not only set a mlock limit when using <locked/>. This would at least ensure we see consistent (bad) behaviour rather than have edge cases that only appeared when <locked/> was present. We would need $LARGE_NUMBER to be much more conservative than what we used in the past though, to avoid hitting the same problems once again. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
