Il 02/07/2013 08:34, Jiri Denemark ha scritto: > I'm not sure if that's > the right think to do or not but it's certainly better than before when > memory locking limit completely ignore the need for VRAM and per-disk > cache. Unfortunately, the original formula was suggested by Avi, who > moved to new challenges. Perhaps others could jump in and share their > opinions (Paolo? :-P). I think the disk cache should not be counted in the memory locking limit. Apart from that, the code you posted below makes sense. Paolo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list