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 1E7D09674F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:52:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E2B82D809
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:52:11 +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>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:52:11 +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 E1BF946112;
Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:52:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <c9fdd807-5dfb-27c7-992c-d41fcad60046@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:52:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <Alexandre.DERUMIER@groupe-cyllene.com>,
"pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
"aderumier@odiso.com" <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <20230104064303.2898194-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
<20230104064303.2898194-9-aderumier@odiso.com>
<3a360312-42c0-6e97-c0e3-6cc70285f3eb@proxmox.com>
<b68f0f56607950351ee5f291b24fc6ad84ee5bf7.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
<5c097397-3777-66a9-579c-b7d99941c399@proxmox.com>
<b94bb2cc029de91b41a2ff30a3eae9ab5da1fab4.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <b94bb2cc029de91b41a2ff30a3eae9ab5da1fab4.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 3.084 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)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -5 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
high trust
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 8/9] memory: add virtio-mem
support
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: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:52:42 -0000
Am 25.01.23 um 11:28 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre:
>> Sure, doing it in parallel is perfectly fine. I'm just thinking that
>> switching gears (too early) and redirecting the request might not be
>> ideal. You also issue an additional qom-set to go back to
>> $virtiomem->{current} * 1024 *1024 if a request didn't make progress
>> in
>> time. But to be sure that request worked, we'd also need to monitor
>> it
>> ;) I think issuing that request is fine as-is, but if there is a
>> "hanging" device, we really can't do much. And I do think the user
>> should be informed via an appropriate error if there is a problematic
>> device.
>>
>> Maybe we can use 10 seconds instead of 5 (2-3 seconds already sounds
>> too
>> close to 5 IMHO), so that we have a good margin, and just die instead
>> of
>> trying to redirect the request to another device. After issuing the
>> reset request and writing our best guess of what the memory is to the
>> config of course.
>>
> I forgot to say, than it don't timeout 5s after the qom-set,
> but timeout after 5s if no memory change is detected by qom-get.
> I'm reseting the retry counter if a change is detected.
> (so 5s is really big, in real, when it's blocking for 1s, it's really
> blocking)
I saw that and thought the "It can take 2-3second on unplug on bigger
setup" means that it can take this long for a change to happen. Since
that's not the case, 5 seconds can be fine of course :)
>> If it really is an issue in practice that certain devices often take
>> too
>> long for whatever reason, we can still add the redirect logic. But
>> starting out, I feel like it's not worth the additional complexity.
>>
> The real only reason will be on unplug, if memory block are unmovable
> (kernel reserved) or with big fragmentation, no available block.(with
> 4MB granurality it's difficult to reach, but with bigger maxmem and
> bigger block, we have more chance to trigger it. (with 1GB
> hugepage,it's more easy to trigger it too I think)
>
> But if you want something more simple,
>
> I can something like before, split memory by number of sockets,
> and if we have an error on 1 socket, don't try to redispatch again
> remaining block of this socket on other nodes.
Hope it's not too much work. I do think we should wait for some user
demand before adding the redispatch feature (and having it as a separate
patch helps to review and for git history). But feel free to include it
if you already experienced the above-mentioned issue a few times ;)