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 4211796484
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:05:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 296ED3C1C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:05:12 +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 14:05:09 +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 F0D3745EAA;
Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:05:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <82bd85df-382d-798a-df1f-8d7aae5344f7@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:05:08 +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>
<20230104064303.2898194-5-aderumier@odiso.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20230104064303.2898194-5-aderumier@odiso.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.593 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [memory.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 qemu-server 4/9] config: memory: add
'max' option
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 13:05:12 -0000
Am 04.01.23 um 07:42 schrieb Alexandre Derumier:
> max can be multiple of 64GB only,
> The dimm size is compute from the max memory
>
> we can have 64 slots:
>
> 64GB = 64 slots x 1GB
> 128GB = 64 slots x 2GB
> ..
> 4TB = 64 slots x 64GB
>
> Also, with numa, we need to share slot between (up to 8) sockets.
>
> 64 is a multiple of 8,
>
> 64GB = 8 sockets * 8 slots * 1GB
> 128GB = 8 sockets * 8 slots * 2GB
> ...
>
> and with virtio-mem,
> we can have 32000 blocks of 2M minimum
>
> 64GB = 32000 * 2MB
The units above should all be TiB, GiB and MiB, right? The virtio-mem
documentation also talks about MiB. But then 32000 * 2MiB isn't 64 GiB.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>
> ---
> PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm b/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm
> index e9c0115..1c4f356 100644
> --- a/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm
> +++ b/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ use warnings;
>
> use PVE::Tools qw(run_command lock_file lock_file_full file_read_firstline dir_glob_foreach);
> use PVE::Exception qw(raise raise_param_exc);
> +use PVE::GuestHelpers qw(safe_string_ne safe_num_ne safe_boolean_ne);
>
> use PVE::QemuServer;
> use PVE::QemuServer::Monitor qw(mon_cmd);
> @@ -25,7 +26,14 @@ my $memory_fmt = {
> optional => 1,
> minimum => 16,
> default => 512,
> - }
> + },
> + max => {
> + type => 'integer',
> + optional => 1,
> + type => 'integer',
> + minimum => 65536,
> + maximum => 4194304
> + },
> };
>
> sub print_memory {
> @@ -43,6 +51,9 @@ sub parse_memory {
>
> $res = eval { PVE::JSONSchema::parse_property_string($memory_fmt, $value) };
> die $@ if $@;
> +
> + die "max memory need to be a multiple of 64GB" if $res->{max} && $res->{max} % 65536 != 0;
s/GB/GiB/
Missing newline at the end of error message
You could also add a dedicated verify method for the format, for example
like pve_verify_hotplug_features(). Then this check is already done at
parameter verification time.
> +
> return $res;
> }
>
> @@ -223,6 +234,11 @@ sub qemu_memory_hotplug {
> my $oldmem = parse_memory($conf->{memory});
> my $newmem = parse_memory($value);
>
> + # skip non hotpluggable value
> + if (safe_num_ne($newmem->{max}, $oldmem->{max})) {
> + die "skip\n";
> + }
Please move this to the call sites. The "die "skip""-logic should not
cross function boundaries.
> +
> my $memory = $oldmem->{current};
> $value = $newmem->{current};
>