From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Unlinking hugepage backing file after initialiation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:16:28 +0300
Message-ID: <20150929161628.GA3810@redhat.com>
References: <D22F2383.2219C%shesha@cisco.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B40F3B093@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B40F3D27A@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <D22FFFC5.22271%shesha@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: "shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha)" <shesha@cisco.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4075A44
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:16:32 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D22FFFC5.22271%shesha@cisco.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:48:08PM +0000, shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha) wrote:
> If huge pages are allocated for the guest and if the guest crashes there may be
> a chance that the new guest may not be able to get huge pages again as some
> other guest or process on the host used it. But I am not able to understand
> memory corruption you are talking about. In my opinion, if a process using a
> piece of memory goes away, it should not re-attach to the same piece of memory
> without running a sanity check on it.

guest memory is allocated an freed by hypervisor, right?
I don't think it's dpdk's job.

-- 
MST