From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.weber@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 81044ACA6 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 13:40:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 62AD61132F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 13:40:55 +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>; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 13:40:54 +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 235574359A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 13:40:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <166ac5f2-30a7-7ae1-7b59-c6b39cf57bfa@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 13:40:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230503133723.165739-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <b7f629db-7689-c796-0f10-5175c49c0fd7@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <b7f629db-7689-c796-0f10-5175c49c0fd7@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.640 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 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. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] vm start: set minimum timeout of 300s if using PCI passthrough 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: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:40:55 -0000 On 21/08/2023 10:33, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Would it make sense to instead add a constant multiplier to the memory > timeout heuristic in presence of PCI passthrough? The user says 65 GiB > takes about 3 min 30 s, so assuming it's more or less linear, the 5 min > from this patch would not be enough for more than ~130 GiB of memory. You're right, a heuristic makes more sense here than a constant multiplier. I'll give it a try in the next version. >> Notes: >> An alternative workaround is offered by an unapplied patch series [3] >> of bug #3502 [2] that makes it possible to set VM-specific timeouts >> (also in the GUI). Users could use this option to manually set a >> higher timeout for VMs that use PCI passthrough. However, it is not >> immediately obvious that a higher timeout is necessary. Since the >> problem seems to come up somewhat frequently, I think it makes sense >> to have the heuristic choose a higher timeout by default. >> >> [2]: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3502 >> [3]: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2023-January/055352.html > > Yes, I think having both the better heuristic and the configurable > timeout makes sense. Since Daniel left, do you want to have another look > at the series/pick it up? Sure! When I'm back from vacation, I'll send another version of this patch series and also take a look at Daniel's old patch series. I'll probably send them separately though, as they are somewhat independent.