From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha)" Subject: Re: Unlinking hugepage backing file after initialiation Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:50:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150929161628.GA3810@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F3E595C for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:50:08 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20150929161628.GA3810@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Sure. Then, is there any real reason why the backing files should not be un= linked ? -- - Thanks char * (*shesha) (uint64_t cache, uint8_t F00D) { return 0x0000C0DE; } From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM To: Cisco Employee > Cc: "Xie, Huawei" >, "dev= @dpdk.org" > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Unlinking hugepage backing file after initialiation 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 ma= y 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 mem= ory 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