From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4075A44 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:16:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 744D8C0B1B36; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-116-22.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.22]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id t8TGGSHv029125; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:16:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:16:28 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha)" Message-ID: <20150929161628.GA3810@redhat.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Unlinking hugepage backing file after initialiation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:16:32 -0000 On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:48:08PM +0000, shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha) wrote: > If huge pages are allocated for the guest and if the guest crashes there may be > a chance that the new guest may not be able to get huge pages again as some > other guest or process on the host used it. But I am not able to understand > memory corruption you are talking about. In my opinion, if a process using a > piece of memory goes away, it should not re-attach to the same piece of memory > without running a sanity check on it. guest memory is allocated an freed by hypervisor, right? I don't think it's dpdk's job. -- MST