Am 12.02.2015 um 16:38 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:56:56AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > On hosts with limited virtual address space (32bit pointers), we can very
> > easily run out of virtual memory with big thread pools.
> >
> > Instead, we should limit ourse
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:56:56AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On hosts with limited virtual address space (32bit pointers), we can very
> easily run out of virtual memory with big thread pools.
>
> Instead, we should limit ourselves to small pools to keep memory footprint
> low on those system
Am 14.01.2015 um 15:09 hat Alexander Graf geschrieben:
> On 01/14/15 15:07, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >Am 14.01.2015 um 14:49 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> >>
> >>On 14/01/2015 14:38, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>>Well, what do you want to use it for? I thought it would only be for a
> >>>one-time check wher
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 14/01/2015 11:20, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> > The same problem applies to coroutine stacks, and those cannot be
>>> > throttled down as easily. But I guess if you limit the number of
>>> > threads, the guest gets slowed down and doesn't create as many coroutines.
>> Should
On 01/14/15 15:07, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 14.01.2015 um 14:49 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
On 14/01/2015 14:38, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Well, what do you want to use it for? I thought it would only be for a
one-time check where we usually end up rather than something that would
be enabled in product
Am 14.01.2015 um 14:49 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
>
>
> On 14/01/2015 14:38, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Well, what do you want to use it for? I thought it would only be for a
> > one-time check where we usually end up rather than something that would
> > be enabled in production, but maybe I misun
On 14/01/2015 14:38, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Well, what do you want to use it for? I thought it would only be for a
> one-time check where we usually end up rather than something that would
> be enabled in production, but maybe I misunderstood.
No, you didn't. Though I guess we could limit the chec
Am 14.01.2015 um 12:18 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
>
>
> On 14/01/2015 11:20, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> > The same problem applies to coroutine stacks, and those cannot be
> >> > throttled down as easily. But I guess if you limit the number of
> >> > threads, the guest gets slowed down and doesn
On 14/01/2015 11:20, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> > The same problem applies to coroutine stacks, and those cannot be
>> > throttled down as easily. But I guess if you limit the number of
>> > threads, the guest gets slowed down and doesn't create as many coroutines.
> Shouldn't we rather try and decrea
Am 14.01.2015 um 08:37 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
>
>
> On 14/01/2015 01:56, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > +if (sizeof(pool) == 4) {
> > +/* 32bit systems run out of virtual memory quickly */
> > +pool->max_threads = 4;
> > +} else {
> > +pool->max_threads = 64;
>
On 14/01/2015 01:56, Alexander Graf wrote:
> +if (sizeof(pool) == 4) {
> +/* 32bit systems run out of virtual memory quickly */
> +pool->max_threads = 4;
> +} else {
> +pool->max_threads = 64;
> +}
Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini
The same problem applies to corou
On hosts with limited virtual address space (32bit pointers), we can very
easily run out of virtual memory with big thread pools.
Instead, we should limit ourselves to small pools to keep memory footprint
low on those systems.
This patch fixes random VM stalls like
(process:25114): GLib-ERROR
12 matches
Mail list logo
