On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:14 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:12 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > It was mostly an honest question, I too am trying to understand what userspace > > wants to do with this information. I was/am also trying to understand the benefits > > of doing the tracking through page_state and not a dedicated KVM stat. E.g. KVM > > already has specific stats for the number of leaf pages mapped into a VM, why not > > do the same for non-leaf pages? > > Let me answer why a more general stat is useful and the potential > userspace reaction: > > For a memory type which is significant enough, it is useful to expose > it in the general interfaces, so that the general data/stat collection > infra can collect them instead of having workload dependent stat > collectors. In addition, not necessarily that stat has to have a > userspace reaction in an online fashion. We do collect stats for > offline analysis which greatly influence the priority order of > optimization workitems. > > Next the question is do we really need a separate stat item > (secondary_pagetable instead of just plain pagetable) exposed in the > stable API? To me secondary_pagetable is general (not kvm specific) > enough and can be significant, so having a separate dedicated stat > should be ok. Though I am ok with lump it with pagetable stat for now > but we do want it to be accounted somewhere. Any thoughts on this? Johannes? _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
