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 09DC11FF15C for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:55:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4E4742690C; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:56:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <507168af-6a0b-43f1-807e-ac9e4e2e5ed0@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:55:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Daniel Kral , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20250930142021.366529-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250930142021.366529-4-d.kral@proxmox.com> <88318e2a-e64f-4537-9a6e-09003bd4af53@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1760698536463 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.021 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_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 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 0.001 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 0.001 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH perl-rs 1/1] pve-rs: resource_scheduling: allow granular usage changes X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 16.10.25 um 5:34 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: > On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 12:32 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 30.09.25 um 4:21 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: >>> Implements a simple bidirectional map to track which service usages have >>> been added to nodes, so that these can be removed later individually. >>> >>> The StaticServiceUsage is added to the HashMap<> in StaticNodeInfo to >>> reduce unnecessary indirection when summing these values in >>> score_nodes_to_start_service(...). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral >> >> Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner >> >>> --- >>> I started out adding and removing the service_usage in StaticNodeUsage >>> on each add_service_usage_to_node(...) and remove_service_usage(...) >>> call individually, but I think summing those up every time is better for >>> numerical stability.. >> >> This can go into the commit message too if worded a bit less informally ;) > > Will do! Even though I asked myself if the concern about numerical > stability really holds true here if we don't go for ha #9 as then these > values will only change over a single manage(...) run and I'd guess that > most users would use floating-point values which can be represented > exactly (0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, ... and 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, ...). For these, > numerical stability shouldn't be a problem at all, or not? I guess cpulimit for containers is the obvious exception ;) _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel