From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9FB31FF13F for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:51:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AC7A8111A8; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:51:18 +0100 (CET) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [PATCH qemu-server 0/2] memory: add verbose_description to numa policy Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:50:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20260312105044.191421-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773312609108 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.105 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) 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: UFTVHDIEOHYGK6IZ2TMLJRXDM5YZEAAQ X-Message-ID-Hash: UFTVHDIEOHYGK6IZ2TMLJRXDM5YZEAAQ 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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Adds a more flavorful description to the NUMA policy option based on both qemu and the kernel's documentation. For now we simply paste the contents of the `qemu-system-x86_64(1)` manual. One open question is if there is any precedent for URIs in verbose descriptions. This came up in a couple of cases in enterprise support where more information was requested regarding the policy. Regarding the 'default' value. NUMA policies were added on our side at 2ed5d5724 but there is no mention of why the 'default' policy is not used as a default. On QEMU's side the first appearance of policies was a 2.1.0 (Aug 2014) and there was a 'default' value at that stage. Maximiliano Sandoval (2): memory: add verbose_description to numa policy memory: add default numa allocation policy src/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm | 17 ++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 2.47.3