From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A86571FF15C for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:08:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C60D2571D; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:08:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8d685bbb-c327-4aed-8f27-f827ecde79c4@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:08:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Fiona Ebner To: Daniel Kral , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20250930142021.366529-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250930142021.366529-5-d.kral@proxmox.com> <55218253-d4cf-4846-8d9f-9fc8610a094a@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <55218253-d4cf-4846-8d9f-9fc8610a094a@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1760695707473 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 ha-manager 1/9] implement static service stats cache 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 17.10.25 um 12:02 PM schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 16.10.25 um 5:15 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: >> On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 1:12 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> Am 30.09.25 um 4:21 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: >>>> @@ -497,6 +499,25 @@ sub get_datacenter_settings { >>>> }; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +sub get_static_service_stats { >>>> + my ($self, $id) = @_; >>>> + >>>> + # undef if update_static_service_stats(...) failed before >>>> + return undef if !defined($self->{static_service_stats}); >>>> + >>>> + return $self->{static_service_stats}->{$id} // {}; >>> >>> Can't returning '{}' when nothing is there lead to issues down the line? >>> If we return undef instead, it's consistent with not having anything >>> cached and the caller will fall back to loading the config. >> >> This return value type definitely needs improvement and/or better >> documentation, but an undef $self->{static_service_stats}->{$id} value >> indicates that it should fallback to the default value as none of the >> properties requested by get_guest_config_properties(...) was included in >> that particular guest config, e.g. no 'cores', 'sockets', and 'memory' >> properties defined in a VM config. >> When $self->{static_service_stats} itself is undef, then the static >> cache couldn't be queried for some reason. > > Okay, so get_guest_config_properties() only includes guests that do have > one of the queried properties explicitly set in its result. Thus, we > cannot distinguish between the cache being created at a time when a > guest did not exist yet or a guest with none of the queried properties > explicitly set. If returning {} as a fallback, we get the wrong values > in the former case, if returning undef as a fallback, we just have to > explicitly load the config in the latter case. There probably are not > many setups with many guests without any of the queried properties > explicitly set, so that is unlikely to hurt performance in practice. Or additionally, we could initialize the cache with {} for the guests that exist at that moment, but do not have any of the queried properties explicitly set. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel