From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.lendl@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 96236931C6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  8 Apr 2024 15:02:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 72039ADD3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  8 Apr 2024 15:02:17 +0200 (CEST)
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>; Mon,  8 Apr 2024 15:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6608A440ED;
 Mon,  8 Apr 2024 15:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Stefan Lendl <s.lendl@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Roland <devzero@web.de>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1049d98d-90d8-44f3-baa9-97c290e6093a@proxmox.com>
References: <20240125105658.1541023-2-s.lendl@proxmox.com>
 <c3d7bba9-73b0-46b0-ad72-94139afc0559@web.de>
 <a96fab26-8358-41ce-a142-740ba575b7a5@proxmox.com>
 <878r1o2h7r.fsf@gmail.com>
 <1049d98d-90d8-44f3-baa9-97c290e6093a@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 15:02:14 +0200
Message-ID: <875xws2ejt.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.019 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 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 ksm-control-daemon] ksmtuned: fix large
 number processing
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 13:02:47 -0000

Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> writes:

> Am 08/04/2024 um 14:04 schrieb Stefan Lendl:
>> I agree summing up processes it would make sense to use PSS.
>> Unfortunately, ps does not report the PSS.
>
> The `ps` from the Debian Bookworm version of the `procps` package does report
> it here if I use something like `ps -C kvm -o pss` though, FWICT this should
> be available here?
>
> Can you please re-check this?

Ok, yes. ps always reported 0 for me when running ps as a regular user,
while other values are reported.
It works as root. I will send a new series then.