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 31DAB90CC3 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:28:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 128F627B4A for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:28:32 +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 ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:28:31 +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 4D877448EA; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:28:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:28:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" , "aderumier@odiso.com" References: <20221209192726.1499142-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20221209192726.1499142-7-aderumier@odiso.com> <5c672ed8-0385-e840-607d-ab6bbb84f7bf@proxmox.com> <816e1986c7da285d494e734767a16b31db7a1dd7.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <816e1986c7da285d494e734767a16b31db7a1dd7.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.601 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 qemu-server 06/10] memory: use 64 slots && static dimm size with max is defined 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: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 12:28:32 -0000 Am 19.12.22 um 13:05 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre: > >>>      my $static_memory = get_static_mem($conf); >>> +    my $confmem = PVE::QemuServer::parse_memory($conf->{memory}); >>>   >>> -    if ($hotplug_features->{memory}) { >>> +    if ($hotplug_features->{memory} || defined($confmem->{max})) { >> >> So setting 'max' auto-attches the dimms[0], but without memory >> hotplug >> enabled, those are useless? Or am I missing something? I feel like we >> can just keep the conditional here and below[0] as-is. >> > > yes, I was not sure here(same for virtio-mem). > > virtiomem && maxmem values only usefull make sense if memory hotplug is > enabled, but for example, for cpu hotplug, we can define a specific > vcpu number, without the hotplug cpu option enabled. > > So I don't known if we should conditionnaly change hardware topology > depending of an hotplug option. > (I mean, only the hotplug action itself should be blocked/allowed by > the option) It's just that the 'max' setting doesn't explicitly describe the hardware topology, but sure, the setting only makes sense for hotplug after all and then a different hardware topology is needed. And with the virito setting, one can argue that it does describe the hardware topology. So feel free to keep the conditionals as-is in your patches :)