Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work

2011-10-02 Thread Avi Kivity

On 09/29/2011 09:46 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

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?




VIRT memory includes both guest memory, and memory reserved (usually not 
used) by qemu.  Don't read too much into it.


--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work

2011-09-29 Thread Robin Lee Powell
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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html