On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:34:44 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. Hmm, I guess you're right. However, we're computing a limit and I feel like allowing QEMU to lock a bit more shouldn't make any bad effects or am I wrong? On the other hand, it would be pretty easy to let the function know what kind of limit it's going to compute each time it's called. > Apart from that, the code you posted below makes sense. Even with the 1GB addition for VFIO? I have to admit I'm a bit ignorant of VFIO but shouldn't that limit be derived from the number of attached devices (similarly to what we do with dick caches)? Thanks, Jirka -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list