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 :|
