Hello!
> > Ok, then would it be a good compromise if we require , and
> > only implicitly
> add "shared" if we have vhost-user
> > devices? This way we would not change the way the guest memory is allocated.
>
> Adding shared implicitly *will* change the way guest memory is allocated,
> as it
Hello!
vhost-user has a small limitation: guest memory must be shared. However, this
simple requirement is satisfied by Libvirt only in
very complicated case:
1. We have to specify NUMA configuration, because we can have "shared"
attribute only for node descriptors inside "NUMA" section.
2.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:28:47PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> vhost-user has a small limitation: guest memory must be shared. However,
> this simple requirement is satisfied by Libvirt only in
> very complicated case:
> 1. We have to specify NUMA configuration, because we can have
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:54:49PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Historically QEMU had a pointless check on the path passed in, to enforce
> > that it was only hugetlbfs, so could not just pass in a regular tmpfs
> > file. I think we removed that in QEMU 2.5. I think it is a valid
Hello!
> Historically QEMU had a pointless check on the path passed in, to enforce
> that it was only hugetlbfs, so could not just pass in a regular tmpfs
> file. I think we removed that in QEMU 2.5. I think it is a valid enhance
> to allow specification of "shared" memory backing which
> would
