constrained offerings should not have cpu speed of 0

[DaanHoogland]

Description

This PR adds a check for 0 cpuspeed on constraint offerings. A doc PR should follow to state that limitcpuuse should be set to zero to allow for unlimited cpu hogging.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[DaanHoogland]

@daviftorres , I was given to understand this would interest you ;) (also have a good 2026)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 39 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 16.23%. Comparing base (b394b5b) to head (8a35487).
⚠️ Report is 55 commits behind head on 4.20.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../cloud/configuration/ConfigurationManagerImpl.java	0.00%	39 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.20   #12330      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     16.23%   16.23%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity    13377    13376       -1     
============================================
  Files          5657     5657              
  Lines        498865   498878      +13     
  Branches      60545    60544       -1     
============================================
- Hits          80991    80988       -3     
- Misses       408843   408856      +13     
- Partials       9031     9034       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests	17.09% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[DaanHoogland]

@shwstppr , can you see if this makes sense, please?

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16196

[shwstppr]

@DaanHoogland problem is probably not just with creating offerings, but after it is used for a VM.
For an unconstrained offering, I was unable to change VM setting cpuSpeed to 0.

For a constrained offering, I could add VM setting cpuSpeed to 0.

[DaanHoogland]

For a constrained offering, I could add VM setting cpuSpeed to 0.

Ok, I will add a guard there as well 🙇 .

[daviftorres]

Currently, all constrained offerings have the CPU value set to 0. With this setting, KVM and VMware do not complain and do not throttle CPU performance.

However, all custom offerings require a positive CPU value; otherwise, they do not work.

I am not sure what the best approach is to address this issue, as my goal is to achieve the best possible performance per core, regardless of the underlying processor.