Re: Memory locking limit and zero-copy migrations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 4:08 AM Milan Zamazal <mzamazal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Not sure whether you already know this, but I had a hard time
> differentiating the two concepts:
> 1. memlock hard limit(shown by prlimit): the hard limit for locked host
> memory
> 2. memtune hard limit(memtune->hard_limit): the hard limit for in-use host
> memory, this memory can be swapped out.

No, I didn't know it, thank you for pointing this out.  Indeed, 2. is
what both the libvirt and kernel documentation seem to say, although not
so clearly.

But when I add <memtune> with <hard_limit> to the domain XML and then
start the VM, I can see the limit shown by `prlimit -l' is increased
accordingly.  This is good for my use case, but does it match what you
say about the two concepts?
memtune->hard_limit(hard limit of in-use memory) actually takes effect via cgroup,
you can check the value by:
# virsh memtune uefi1
hard_limit     : 134217728
soft_limit     : unlimited
swap_hard_limit: unlimited
# cat /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/machine.slice/machine-qemu\\x2d6\\x2duefi1.scope/libvirt/memory.limit_in_bytes

When vm starts with memtune->hard_limit set in domain XML, memlock hard limit(
hard_limit of locked memory, shown by 'prlimit -l')will be set to the value of
memtune->hard_limit. This's probably because memlock hard limit must be less 
than memtune->hard_limit.

[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux