From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B42964B9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:09:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0D4844007 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:08:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:08:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E17045E98; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:08:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4f0e04e0-11b6-5b3e-9dfe-a376e714af27@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:08:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, "aderumier@odiso.com" <aderumier@odiso.com> References: <20230104064303.2898194-1-aderumier@odiso.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20230104064303.2898194-1-aderumier@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.585 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 qemu-server 0/9] rework memory hotplug + virtiomem X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:09:23 -0000 Am 04.01.23 um 07:42 schrieb Alexandre Derumier: > This patch series rework the current memory hotplug + virtiomem. > > memory option now have extra options: > > memory: [[current=]<integer>] [,max=<enum>] [,virtio=<1|0>] > ex: memory: current=1024,max=131072,virtio=1 > > > patches 1-2: add a memory parser > > patches 3-7: add the max option with 64 static dimm hotplug > > for classic memory hotplug, when maxmemory is defined, > we use 64 fixed size dimm. > The max option is a multiple of 64GB. > > patches 8-9: add virtio-mem > > The virtio option enable new virtio-mem support, > instead of plugging dimm, it's add/removed block inside > big dimm. > virtio-mem can use 32000 blocks, the blocksize is compute from > max memory. > > > Changelog v2: > > update differents patches based on Fiona comments. > (I have send 2 others mails with comments not yet addressed) > > Biggest change is on virtio-mem, instead of trying to have same amount of memory > on each virtiomem (some block could be unmovable and break unplug), > we try to balance/dispatch remaining block on other available virtiomems. > > Also, the minimum blocksize supported by linux guest os is 4MB currently, > even if virtiomem can use 2MB on qemu side. > > Patch10 with hotplug fix has be merged in others patches. Thank you for tackling this! Most of my comments are nits/suggestions for improvements, but there are a few real issues I found. The issues and some of the more important suggestions (details in the patches): Patch 2/9 does a breaking change by changing with what value gets written to the config. In patch 4/9 the die "skip"-logic really should be at the call side instead. In patch 6/9 something is wrong with the calculation for unplugging in combination with 'max' (it uses the wrong dimm IDs). In patch 8/9 you really should mention that virtio-mem is a technology preview. Also the whole "retry handling/marking as error" logic is a bit much, and would ideally be its own patch, if we even want this much complexity. Missing adaptation for ha-manager.