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 17A131FF137 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 14:42:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1F25D1C8E5; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 14:43:00 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 14:42:26 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v3 09/40] resource-scheduling: implement rebalancing migration selection From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Daniel Kral" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260330144101.668747-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260330144101.668747-10-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260330144101.668747-10-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774960890967 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.406 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 Message-ID-Hash: 4AQV6SCORWMJSSASPKLUXZ2XFU7Q5LJP X-Message-ID-Hash: 4AQV6SCORWMJSSASPKLUXZ2XFU7Q5LJP X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@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: On Mon Mar 30, 2026 at 4:30 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: [snip] > =20 > + /// Adds the resource stats to the node stats as if the resource is = running on the node. > + pub fn add_running_resource(&mut self, resource_stats: &ResourceStat= s) { > + self.cpu +=3D resource_stats.cpu; > + self.mem +=3D resource_stats.mem; > + } > + > + /// Removes the resource stats from the node stats as if the resourc= e is not running on the node. > + pub fn remove_running_resource(&mut self, resource_stats: &ResourceS= tats) { > + self.cpu -=3D resource_stats.cpu; >>From what I can gather, due to how the stats are collected, it could occur here that self.cpu < 0. I think it could make sense to do something like self.cpu =3D f64::max(0.0, self.cpu - resource_stats.cpu); here to avoid it affecting the node imbalance calculation. > + self.mem =3D self.mem.saturating_sub(resource_stats.mem); > + } > + > /// Returns the current cpu usage as a percentage. > pub fn cpu_load(&self) -> f64 { > self.cpu / self.maxcpu as f64 > @@ -38,6 +50,11 @@ impl NodeStats { > pub fn mem_load(&self) -> f64 { > self.mem as f64 / self.maxmem as f64 > } > + > + /// Returns a combined node usage as a percentage. > + pub fn load(&self) -> f64 { > + (self.cpu_load() + self.mem_load()) / 2.0 > + } > } [snip]