On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 18:16:49 +0000 "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Makes me even more nervous, but I agree with your reasoning. Btw, do we have a volunteer to do this work? Andrea? > > 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 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
