On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:44:42PM +0530, Amit Tomer wrote: > Thanks for the Review. > > > > I think it would be even more useful to distinguish between mmio exits > > handled in the kernel vs. those going to userspace. > > Ok, I would work on it. > > > > why more exit stats on arm64 than on arm? > > Intention is to just add these stats only for ARM64 but I had to do it for arm, > so that things don't break. please keep both architectures up to date as much as possible for these kinds of changes. > > > why u32? Would it not make sense to make these u64 or just unsigned > > long? > > Ok, You mean to say, for ARM we should use u32 and for ARM64 we should > u64, right? loss of context here, so I'm not sure. Is there a reason why you cannot/shouldn't use u64? I'm just thinking that overflows could happen fairly easy on u32, but otoh. there are some existing defines using u32 for some reason... > > > either you should use one called wfx_exit_stat or you should distinguish > > between wfi and wfe; this is just a weird way of doing it. > > Sorry, didn't just get your point here :( > wfx means "either a wfi or wfe happened", so you either define two separate trace points, one for wfi and one for wfe, or you define a single tracepoint for wfx. I'll look forward to v2. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
