From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 C33A49643C for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:16:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9346D15E31 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:16:12 +0100 (CET) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:16:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CAAA248004; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:16:11 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Lendl To: Roland Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion In-Reply-To: <6104c230-7e2e-43ae-8598-6c458b979ae1@web.de> References: <20240125105658.1541023-2-s.lendl@proxmox.com> <6104c230-7e2e-43ae-8598-6c458b979ae1@web.de> Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:16:11 +0100 Message-ID: <87msrj8fno.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.032 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 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 ksm-control-daemon] ksmtuned: fix large number processing 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:16:42 -0000 Roland writes: > oh, and shouldn't we also add that to total and free_memory calculation, > even chances are less that the limit is hit there ? > > total=`awk '/^MemTotal:/ {print $2}' /proc/meminfo` total does not require the printf fix because it does not do any calculation. The "print $2" operates on string level and prints the 2nd ($2) part of the string after splitting at whitespaces.