On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 02:22:43PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 05:14:47PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > Please post the contents of /proc/meminfo and /proc/zoneinfo > > > > when this is happening. > > > > > > I just noticed that the amount of RAM the VMs had in VIRT > > > added up to considerably more than the host's actual RAM; > > > hard_limit is now on. So I may not be able to replicate this. > > > :) > > > > Or not; even with hard_limit the VIRT value goes to hundreds of > > MiB more than the limit. Is that expected? > > Yes, VIRT field refers to total memory mapped by the process, not > paged-in memory, which is indicated by the RES field. Yes, I'm aware of that; that isn't relevant to my question. I would expect the *total* memory requested by a VM to never go over the hard_limit value set in the XML file. I mean, isn't that what the hard_limit *means*? If not, what does it mean? That's certainly what http://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsMemoryTuning *implies*, anyways. -Robin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
