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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FDE18B16E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 10:26:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1A51B7811 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 10:26:14 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 10:26:12 +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 26D4A42BF0; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 10:26:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0342b548-cfb0-0737-2f1d-310b14291680@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 10:26:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Matt Corallo <lpxdfsfs@mattcorallo.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <a5789fb9-b22a-a58a-9190-fa34e89c41a2@bluematt.me> <5a13fe68-3c53-b986-2c09-a80d31db225d@proxmox.com> <837ccb7a-a073-09ac-f4ab-708b797d41b1@bluematt.me> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Cc: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <837ccb7a-a073-09ac-f4ab-708b797d41b1@bluematt.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.046 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 -0.001 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] Update cpu.weight default to match documented default 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, 24 Aug 2022 08:26:44 -0000 Am 24.08.22 um 01:56 schrieb Matt Corallo: > > > On 8/19/22 6:08 AM, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 16.08.22 05:49, Matt Corallo wrote: >>> Proxmox documentation describes the default CPU weight as 1024 in >>> numerous places. However, when unset, the Linux default CGROUP >>> weight is 100. >>> >> >> I'd rather update the documentation in all places, because most likely >> it just wasn't adapted to mention the cgroup2 default yet. Some places >> already do mention both defaults, e.g. 'man 5 qm.conf' > > Hmm, am I understanding that correctly that now I have to figure out if > I'm using cgroup2 or cgroup1 to figure out if the default is 1024 or > 100? Or are modern PVE's all running cgroup2 and the UI simply needs to > be updated universally to say that the default is now 100? > > Matt > PVE 7.x uses cgroupv2 by default, so reporting the new default in the UI would be correct for most installations. That said, we do still support cgroupv1[0], so ideally, the default in the UI would be shown depending on the cgroup version the node is actually running. I think this was the plan, but it never got realized. This (not yet applied) patch[1] would expose the cluster node's cgroup version to other nodes, to be used by the frontend. @Thomas: Is this still the plan? If it is, I'll cook up a v2 adding UI and doc patches. [0] https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Upgrade_from_6.x_to_7.0#CGroupV2 [1] https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2021-July/049253.html