From: "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Drop qemuDomainMemoryLimit
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 18:32:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5205199A.6090602@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87haeysvnk.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
Am 09.08.2013 17:58, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> Even if we had an algorithm for calculating memory overhead (we don't),
> glibc will still introduce uncertainty since malloc(size) doesn't
> translate to allocating size bytes from the kernel. When you throw in
> fragmentation too it becomes extremely hard to predict.
>
> The only practical way of doing this would be to have QEMU gracefully
> handle malloc() == NULL so that you could set a limit and gracefully
> degrade. We don't though so setting a limit is likely to get you in
> trouble.
FWIW my QOM realize work is targetted at reducing likelihood that
device_add blows up QEMU due to OOM in object_new(). But before I can
change qdev-monitor.c I still need to tweak core QOM to either get at
TypeImpl::instance_size or to introduce an object_try_new() function
using g_try_malloc0() rather than g_malloc0(). That's where proper child
struct composition comes into play.
The major variance in runtime memory consumption was so far attributed
to block and network I/O, without ever getting exact proof points...
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-09 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <ad6173415eb6c51c95645e42b4bafa67cac39986.1376052970.git.mprivozn@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <5204EB16.8020801@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20130809131759.GB2868@redhat.com>
2013-08-09 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Drop qemuDomainMemoryLimit Michal Privoznik
2013-08-09 15:58 ` Anthony Liguori
2013-08-09 16:29 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2013-08-19 8:29 ` Michal Privoznik
2013-08-19 9:06 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2013-08-19 10:06 ` Michal Privoznik
2013-08-09 16:32 ` Andreas Färber [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5205199A.6090602@suse.de \
--to=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=libvir-list@redhat.com \
--cc=mprivozn@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).