* Questions about duplicate memory work @ 2011-09-25 4:45 Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-26 5:49 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-25 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kvm OK, so I've got a Linux host, and a bunch of Linux VMs. This means that the host *and* all tho VMs do their own disk caches/buffers and do their own swap as well. That seems like a horrible duplication of effort, and likely to result in performance problems. I'm very annoyed by seeing the *master* swapping out portions of the VM's qemu-kvm procs; that just seems like a really bad idea. Are there preferred solutions here? I've considered turning off swap on the VMs so all the swapping at least happens in *one place*; I dunno if that's best. What I'd love is for the master to not swap or do disk buffering/caching, so all the RAM management is at the VM level, but I bet it's not really possible to do that. -Robin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-25 4:45 Questions about duplicate memory work Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-26 5:49 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 2011-09-26 7:18 ` Robin Lee Powell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Emmanuel Noobadmin @ 2011-09-26 5:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robin Lee Powell; +Cc: kvm On 9/25/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > OK, so I've got a Linux host, and a bunch of Linux VMs. > > This means that the host *and* all tho VMs do their own disk > caches/buffers and do their own swap as well. If I'm not wrong, that's why the recommended and current default in libvirtd is to create storage devices with no caching to remove one layer of duplication. > I've considered turning off swap on the VMs so all the swapping at > least happens in *one place*; I dunno if that's best. Not sure it's a good idea. If the VM needs more working memory than you allocated, I think it locks up dead if there is insufficient swap space. At least that appears to be what happened to one of mine. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-26 5:49 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin @ 2011-09-26 7:18 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-26 8:15 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-26 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Emmanuel Noobadmin; +Cc: kvm On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:49:18PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > On 9/25/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > > OK, so I've got a Linux host, and a bunch of Linux VMs. > > > > This means that the host *and* all tho VMs do their own disk > > caches/buffers and do their own swap as well. > > If I'm not wrong, that's why the recommended and current default > in libvirtd is to create storage devices with no caching to remove > one layer of duplication. How do you do that? I have my VMs using LVs created on the host as their disks, but I'm open to other methods if there are significant advantages. > > I've considered turning off swap on the VMs so all the swapping > > at least happens in *one place*; I dunno if that's best. > > Not sure it's a good idea. If the VM needs more working memory > than you allocated, I think it locks up dead if there is > insufficient swap space. At least that appears to be what happened > to one of mine. Good to know, thanks. -Robin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-26 7:18 ` Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-26 8:15 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 2011-09-26 9:14 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby 2011-09-27 7:38 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Emmanuel Noobadmin @ 2011-09-26 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robin Lee Powell; +Cc: kvm On 9/26/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:49:18PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: >> On 9/25/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: >> > >> > OK, so I've got a Linux host, and a bunch of Linux VMs. >> > >> > This means that the host *and* all tho VMs do their own disk >> > caches/buffers and do their own swap as well. >> >> If I'm not wrong, that's why the recommended and current default >> in libvirtd is to create storage devices with no caching to remove >> one layer of duplication. > > How do you do that? I have my VMs using LVs created on the host as > their disks, but I'm open to other methods if there are significant > advantages. It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, whether file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes KVM tell the host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. To do so just use the option cache=none when specify the storage. e.g. from http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Tuning_KVM qemu -drive file=/dev/mapper/ImagesVolumeGroup-Guest1,cache=none,if=virtio or edit the cache attribute in the libvirt domain XML file if you're using that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-26 8:15 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin @ 2011-09-26 9:14 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby 2011-09-27 7:38 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Mihamina Rakotomandimby @ 2011-09-26 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Emmanuel Noobadmin; +Cc: Robin Lee Powell, kvm On 09/26/2011 11:15 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: >>>> This means that the host *and* all tho VMs do their own disk >>>> caches/buffers and do their own swap as well. >>> If I'm not wrong, that's why the recommended and current default >>> in libvirtd is to create storage devices with no caching to remove >>> one layer of duplication. >> How do you do that? > or edit the cache attribute in the libvirt domain XML file if you're using that. Just saw it: http://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsDisks <disk ... > <driver ... cache="none" ... /> <... /> </disk> Good to know. -- RMA. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-26 8:15 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 2011-09-26 9:14 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby @ 2011-09-27 7:38 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-27 8:41 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-27 7:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Emmanuel Noobadmin; +Cc: kvm On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:15:37PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > On 9/26/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:49:18PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > >> On 9/25/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > OK, so I've got a Linux host, and a bunch of Linux VMs. > >> > > >> > This means that the host *and* all tho VMs do their own disk > >> > caches/buffers and do their own swap as well. > >> > >> If I'm not wrong, that's why the recommended and current default > >> in libvirtd is to create storage devices with no caching to remove > >> one layer of duplication. > > > > How do you do that? I have my VMs using LVs created on the host as > > their disks, but I'm open to other methods if there are significant > > advantages. > > It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, whether > file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes KVM tell the > host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. Wait, hold on, I think I had it backwards. It tells the *host* to not cache the device in question, or the *VMs* to not cache the device in question? -Robin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-27 7:38 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-27 8:41 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 2011-09-27 8:48 ` Robin Lee Powell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Emmanuel Noobadmin @ 2011-09-27 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robin Lee Powell; +Cc: kvm On 9/27/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:15:37PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: >> It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, whether >> file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes KVM tell the >> host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. > > Wait, hold on, I think I had it backwards. > > It tells the *host* to not cache the device in question, or the > *VMs* to not cache the device in question? I'm fairly certain it tells the qemu not to cache the device in question. If you don't want the guest to cache their i/o, then the guest OS should be configured if it allows that. Although I'm not sure if it's possible to disable disk buffering/caching system wide in Linux. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-27 8:41 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin @ 2011-09-27 8:48 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-27 9:00 ` Robin Lee Powell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-27 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Emmanuel Noobadmin; +Cc: kvm On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:41:33PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > On 9/27/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:15:37PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin > > wrote: > >> It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, > >> whether file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes > >> KVM tell the host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. > > > > Wait, hold on, I think I had it backwards. > > > > It tells the *host* to not cache the device in question, or the > > *VMs* to not cache the device in question? > > I'm fairly certain it tells the qemu not to cache the device in > question. If you don't want the guest to cache their i/o, then the > guest OS should be configured if it allows that. Although I'm not > sure if it's possible to disable disk buffering/caching system > wide in Linux. OK, great, thanks. Now if I could just figure out how to stop the host from swapping out much of the VMs' qemu-kvm procs when it has almost a GiB of RAM left. -_- swappiness 0 doesn't seem to help there. -Robin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-27 8:48 ` Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-27 9:00 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-27 9:49 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-27 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Emmanuel Noobadmin; +Cc: kvm On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:48:43AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:41:33PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > > On 9/27/11, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:15:37PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin > > > wrote: > > >> It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, > > >> whether file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes > > >> KVM tell the host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. > > > > > > Wait, hold on, I think I had it backwards. > > > > > > It tells the *host* to not cache the device in question, or the > > > *VMs* to not cache the device in question? > > > > I'm fairly certain it tells the qemu not to cache the device in > > question. If you don't want the guest to cache their i/o, then the > > guest OS should be configured if it allows that. Although I'm not > > sure if it's possible to disable disk buffering/caching system > > wide in Linux. > > OK, great, thanks. > > Now if I could just figure out how to stop the host from swapping > out much of the VMs' qemu-kvm procs when it has almost a GiB of RAM > left. -_- swappiness 0 doesn't seem to help there. Grrr. I turned swap off to clear it. A few minutes ago, this host was at zero swap: top - 01:59:10 up 10 days, 15:17, 3 users, load average: 6.39, 4.26, 3.24 Tasks: 151 total, 1 running, 150 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 6.6%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 85.9%id, 6.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8128772k total, 6511116k used, 1617656k free, 14800k buffers Swap: 8388604k total, 672828k used, 7715776k free, 97536k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2504 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.8g 448 S 10.0 23.4 3547:59 qemu-kvm 2258 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.7g 444 S 2.7 21.7 1288:15 qemu-kvm 18061 qemu 20 0 2433m 1.8g 428 S 2.3 23.4 401:01.99 qemu-kvm 10335 qemu 20 0 1864m 861m 456 S 1.0 10.9 2:04.26 qemu-kvm [snip] Why is it doing this?!? ;'( (I don't know if anyone really has an answer, just wanted to rant) -Robin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-27 9:00 ` Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-27 9:49 ` Avi Kivity 2011-09-29 0:11 ` Robin Lee Powell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-09-27 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robin Lee Powell; +Cc: Emmanuel Noobadmin, kvm, Andrea Arcangeli On 09/27/2011 12:00 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:48:43AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:41:33PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > > > On 9/27/11, Robin Lee Powell<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:15:37PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin > > > > wrote: > > > >> It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, > > > >> whether file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes > > > >> KVM tell the host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. > > > > > > > > Wait, hold on, I think I had it backwards. > > > > > > > > It tells the *host* to not cache the device in question, or the > > > > *VMs* to not cache the device in question? > > > > > > I'm fairly certain it tells the qemu not to cache the device in > > > question. If you don't want the guest to cache their i/o, then the > > > guest OS should be configured if it allows that. Although I'm not > > > sure if it's possible to disable disk buffering/caching system > > > wide in Linux. > > > > OK, great, thanks. > > > > Now if I could just figure out how to stop the host from swapping > > out much of the VMs' qemu-kvm procs when it has almost a GiB of RAM > > left. -_- swappiness 0 doesn't seem to help there. > > Grrr. > > I turned swap off to clear it. A few minutes ago, this host was at > zero swap: > > top - 01:59:10 up 10 days, 15:17, 3 users, load average: 6.39, 4.26, 3.24 > Tasks: 151 total, 1 running, 150 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > Cpu(s): 6.6%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 85.9%id, 6.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st > Mem: 8128772k total, 6511116k used, 1617656k free, 14800k buffers > Swap: 8388604k total, 672828k used, 7715776k free, 97536k cached > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 2504 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.8g 448 S 10.0 23.4 3547:59 qemu-kvm > 2258 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.7g 444 S 2.7 21.7 1288:15 qemu-kvm > 18061 qemu 20 0 2433m 1.8g 428 S 2.3 23.4 401:01.99 qemu-kvm > 10335 qemu 20 0 1864m 861m 456 S 1.0 10.9 2:04.26 qemu-kvm > [snip] > > Why is it doing this?!? ;'( > Please post the contents of /proc/meminfo and /proc/zoneinfo when this is happening. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-27 9:49 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-09-29 0:11 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-29 0:14 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-29 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Emmanuel Noobadmin, kvm, Andrea Arcangeli On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:49:29PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/27/2011 12:00 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:48:43AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:41:33PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > >> > On 9/27/11, Robin Lee Powell<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > >> > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:15:37PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, > >> > >> whether file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes > >> > >> KVM tell the host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. > >> > > > >> > > Wait, hold on, I think I had it backwards. > >> > > > >> > > It tells the *host* to not cache the device in question, or the > >> > > *VMs* to not cache the device in question? > >> > > >> > I'm fairly certain it tells the qemu not to cache the device in > >> > question. If you don't want the guest to cache their i/o, then the > >> > guest OS should be configured if it allows that. Although I'm not > >> > sure if it's possible to disable disk buffering/caching system > >> > wide in Linux. > >> > >> OK, great, thanks. > >> > >> Now if I could just figure out how to stop the host from swapping > >> out much of the VMs' qemu-kvm procs when it has almost a GiB of RAM > >> left. -_- swappiness 0 doesn't seem to help there. > > > >Grrr. > > > >I turned swap off to clear it. A few minutes ago, this host was at > >zero swap: > > > >top - 01:59:10 up 10 days, 15:17, 3 users, load average: 6.39, 4.26, 3.24 > >Tasks: 151 total, 1 running, 150 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > >Cpu(s): 6.6%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 85.9%id, 6.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st > >Mem: 8128772k total, 6511116k used, 1617656k free, 14800k buffers > >Swap: 8388604k total, 672828k used, 7715776k free, 97536k cached > > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > 2504 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.8g 448 S 10.0 23.4 3547:59 qemu-kvm > > 2258 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.7g 444 S 2.7 21.7 1288:15 qemu-kvm > >18061 qemu 20 0 2433m 1.8g 428 S 2.3 23.4 401:01.99 qemu-kvm > >10335 qemu 20 0 1864m 861m 456 S 1.0 10.9 2:04.26 qemu-kvm > >[snip] > > > >Why is it doing this?!? ;'( > > > > 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. :) -Robin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-29 0:11 ` Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-29 0:14 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-29 17:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-29 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Emmanuel Noobadmin, kvm, Andrea Arcangeli On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 05:11:06PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:49:29PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 09/27/2011 12:00 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:48:43AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:41:33PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > > >> > On 9/27/11, Robin Lee Powell<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:15:37PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> It's unrelated to what you're actually using as the disks, > > >> > >> whether file or block devices like LVs. I think it just makes > > >> > >> KVM tell the host not to cache I/O done on the storage device. > > >> > > > > >> > > Wait, hold on, I think I had it backwards. > > >> > > > > >> > > It tells the *host* to not cache the device in question, or the > > >> > > *VMs* to not cache the device in question? > > >> > > > >> > I'm fairly certain it tells the qemu not to cache the device in > > >> > question. If you don't want the guest to cache their i/o, then the > > >> > guest OS should be configured if it allows that. Although I'm not > > >> > sure if it's possible to disable disk buffering/caching system > > >> > wide in Linux. > > >> > > >> OK, great, thanks. > > >> > > >> Now if I could just figure out how to stop the host from swapping > > >> out much of the VMs' qemu-kvm procs when it has almost a GiB of RAM > > >> left. -_- swappiness 0 doesn't seem to help there. > > > > > >Grrr. > > > > > >I turned swap off to clear it. A few minutes ago, this host was at > > >zero swap: > > > > > >top - 01:59:10 up 10 days, 15:17, 3 users, load average: 6.39, 4.26, 3.24 > > >Tasks: 151 total, 1 running, 150 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > > >Cpu(s): 6.6%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 85.9%id, 6.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st > > >Mem: 8128772k total, 6511116k used, 1617656k free, 14800k buffers > > >Swap: 8388604k total, 672828k used, 7715776k free, 97536k cached > > > > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > > 2504 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.8g 448 S 10.0 23.4 3547:59 qemu-kvm > > > 2258 qemu 20 0 2425m 1.7g 444 S 2.7 21.7 1288:15 qemu-kvm > > >18061 qemu 20 0 2433m 1.8g 428 S 2.3 23.4 401:01.99 qemu-kvm > > >10335 qemu 20 0 1864m 861m 456 S 1.0 10.9 2:04.26 qemu-kvm > > >[snip] > > > > > >Why is it doing this?!? ;'( > > > > > > > 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? -Robin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-29 0:14 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-29 17:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2011-09-29 18:46 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2011-09-29 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robin Lee Powell; +Cc: Avi Kivity, Emmanuel Noobadmin, kvm, Andrea Arcangeli 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-29 17:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2011-09-29 18:46 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-10-02 8:56 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-09-29 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Avi Kivity, Emmanuel Noobadmin, kvm, Andrea Arcangeli 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: [kvm] Re: Questions about duplicate memory work 2011-09-29 18:46 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell @ 2011-10-02 8:56 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-10-02 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robin Lee Powell Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Emmanuel Noobadmin, kvm, Andrea Arcangeli 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-10-02 8:56 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-09-25 4:45 Questions about duplicate memory work Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-26 5:49 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 2011-09-26 7:18 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-26 8:15 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 2011-09-26 9:14 ` Mihamina Rakotomandimby 2011-09-27 7:38 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-27 8:41 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin 2011-09-27 8:48 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-27 9:00 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-27 9:49 ` Avi Kivity 2011-09-29 0:11 ` Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-29 0:14 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell 2011-09-29 17:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2011-09-29 18:46 ` Re: [kvm] " Robin Lee Powell 2011-10-02 8:56 ` Avi Kivity
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.