From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
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 C635394D6C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:04:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A16A11EF54
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:03:32 +0200 (CEST)
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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:03:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0D368449F4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:03:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:03:28 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <quyhbmovjhavwrqraywntwpzqdlrf5dfk6lridtaogfhs2svxh@khc2mkber7gg>
References: <20240410131316.1208679-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<20240410131316.1208679-9-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<1712820202.g97tka6mqx.astroid@yuna.none>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1712820202.g97tka6mqx.astroid@yuna.none>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.086 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [config.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container 7/7] update: handle pool limits
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:04:02 -0000
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:23:53AM +0200, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> On April 10, 2024 3:13 pm, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > src/PVE/API2/LXC/Config.pm | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/LXC/Config.pm b/src/PVE/API2/LXC/Config.pm
> > index e6c0980..3fb3885 100644
> > --- a/src/PVE/API2/LXC/Config.pm
> > +++ b/src/PVE/API2/LXC/Config.pm
> > @@ -208,6 +208,27 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
> >
> > my $running = PVE::LXC::check_running($vmid);
> >
> > + my $usage = PVE::LXC::Config->get_pool_usage($conf);
> > + if (defined($param->{memory}) || defined($param->{swap})) {
> > + my $old = $usage->{mem};
> > + my $new = $param->{memory} || $usage->{memory};
> > + $new *= ($param->{swap} || $usage->{swap});
>
> as Dominik pointed out off-list, this should be an addition, not a
> multiplication..
Do we even want to mix mem & swap? Feels cgroupv1-y... (as in bad)