On 23.08.21 11:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 09:40, David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
Not opposed to printing the size, although I doubt that it will really
stop similar questions/problems getting raised.
The case that triggered this was somebody thinking
-m took a byte count, so very likely that an error message
saying "you tried to allocate 38TB" would have made their
mistake clear in a way that just "allocation failed" did not.
It also means that if a future user asks us for help then
we can look at the error message and immediately tell them
the problem, rather than going "hmm, what are all the possible
ways that allocation might have failed" and going off down
rabbitholes like VM overcommit settings...
We've had similar issues recently where Linux memory overcommit handling
rejected the allocation -- and the user was well aware about the actual
size. You won't be able to catch such reports, because people don't
understand how Linux memory overcommit handling works or was configured.
"I have 3 GiB of free memory, why can't I create a 3 GiB VM". "I have 3
GiB of RAM, why can't I create a 3 GiB VM even if it won't make use of
all 3 GiB of memory".
Thus my comment, it will only stop very basic usage issues. And I agree
that looking at the error *might* help. It didn't help for the cases I
just described, because we need much more system information to make a
guess what the user error actually is.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
