[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1796839] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2019-03-15 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From mainam...@in.ibm.com 2019-03-15 02:50 EDT--- (In reply to comment #14) > The method mentioned in comment 9 is to use module parameter to change the > value of max_mem_regions. Which is working and hotplug happens upto the 256 > times. > > How ever the same solution may not

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1796839] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2019-02-19 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From harih...@in.ibm.com 2019-02-20 00:30 EDT--- The method mentioned in comment 9 is to use module parameter to change the value of max_mem_regions. Which is working and hotplug happens upto the 256 times. How ever the same solution may not be useful in the production

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1796839] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2019-02-18 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From mainam...@in.ibm.com 2019-02-19 00:16 EDT--- yes we can close this bug Thanks -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1796839 Title: Only 64 Memory

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1796839] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2019-02-18 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From harih...@in.ibm.com 2019-02-18 05:01 EDT--- I was able to set the max_mem_regions to 512 using module parameter for vhost modprobe -r vhost modprobe vhost max_mem_regions=512 cat /sys/module/vhost/parameters/max_mem_regions 512 I was able to set the max_mem_regions to

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1796839] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2019-01-17 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From harih...@in.ibm.com 2019-01-17 06:33 EDT--- On the standard kernel also I am seeing the same values. root@ltc-test:~# cat /sys/module/vhost/parameters/max_mem_regions 64 root@ltc-test:~# cat /etc/os-release NAME="Ubuntu" VERSION="18.10 (Cosmic Cuttlefish)" ID=ubuntu

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1796839] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2019-01-03 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From mainam...@in.ibm.com 2019-01-04 00:33 EDT--- (In reply to comment #5) > I believe the "uname -a" output shows that this issue was observed with a > custom, i.e. a non-Ubuntu, kernel. Could you confirm that the issue is seen > with an unmodified Ubuntu kernel? > > Also, do