From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DFD41FF13F for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:40:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6015B1BFCA; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:40:04 +0100 (CET) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Dominik Csapak Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server 2/2] memory: add default numa allocation policy In-Reply-To: <855dc01d-7612-415a-9be8-79bd873ad288@proxmox.com> (Dominik Csapak's message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:26:14 +0100") References: <20260312105044.191421-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <20260312105044.191421-3-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <855dc01d-7612-415a-9be8-79bd873ad288@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:39:55 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773326359961 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.961 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.408 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.819 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.903 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: ASWHMSMCTBXJR332NFMXJOHODNV4EEO4 X-Message-ID-Hash: ASWHMSMCTBXJR332NFMXJOHODNV4EEO4 X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Dominik Csapak writes: > just for clarity: was this requested or did you just notice that it was missing? I noticed a while ago it was missing and never went around to fix it. Clarification was also requested a couple of times in enterprise support. > On 3/12/26 11:50 AM, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> This follows the host numa policy. >> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval >> --- >> src/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm | 7 ++++--- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> diff --git a/src/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm b/src/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm >> index bcf6f9c5..9e65b2b0 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm >> @@ -40,11 +40,12 @@ my $numa_fmt = { >> }, >> policy => { >> type => 'string', >> - enum => [qw(preferred bind interleave)], >> + enum => [qw(default preferred bind interleave)], >> description => "NUMA allocation policy.", >> verbose_description => <> NUMA allocation policy. Possible values are: >> + - default: default host policy >> - preferred: prefer the given host node list for allocation >> - bind: restrict memory allocation to the given host node list >> - interleave: interleave memory allocations across the given host node list >> @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ The models are explained in more details at the kernel's documentation >> https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.html#components-of-memory-policies. >> EODESC >> optional => 1, >> + default => 'default', >> }, >> }; >> PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('pve-qm-numanode', $numa_fmt); >> @@ -450,8 +452,7 @@ sub config { >> my $hostnodes = print_numa_hostnodes($hostnodelists); >> # policy >> - my $policy = $numa->{policy}; >> - die "you need to define a policy for hostnode $hostnodes\n" if !$policy; >> + my $policy = $numa->{policy} // 'default'; > > while the property itself was already optional (since it was only required when > the hostnodes were given) when we add this > we should mark 'default' as the default in the schema. This was set as a default a couple of lines above, is this what you meant? > > otherwise we could keep this check here and not set a default. > I will send a v2 where instead of `// 'default'` one checks for the default value in the schema. >> $mem_object .= ",host-nodes=$hostnodes,policy=$policy"; >> } else { >> die "numa hostnodes need to be defined to use hugepages" if $conf->{hugepages}; -- Maximiliano