Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] KVM: s390: add stat counter for shadow gmap events

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/9/23 17:14, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2023 16:54:21 +0200
Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Quoting Janosch Frank (2023-05-09 13:59:46)
[...]
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 3c3fe45085ec..7f70e3bbb44c 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -777,6 +777,11 @@ struct kvm_vm_stat {
       u64 inject_service_signal;
       u64 inject_virtio;
       u64 aen_forward;
+     u64 gmap_shadow_acquire;
+     u64 gmap_shadow_r2;
+     u64 gmap_shadow_r3;
+     u64 gmap_shadow_segment;
+     u64 gmap_shadow_page;

This needs to be gmap_shadow_pgt and then we need a separate shadow page
counter that's beeing incremented in kvm_s390_shadow_fault().


I'm wondering if we should name them after the entries to reduce
confusion especially when we get huge pages in the future.

gmap_shadow_acquire
gmap_shadow_r1_te (ptr to r2 table)
gmap_shadow_r2_te (ptr to r3 table)
gmap_shadow_r3_te (ptr to segment table)
gmap_shadow_sg_te (ptr to page table)
gmap_shadow_pg_te (single page table entry)

but then why not calling them gmap_shadow_{pte,pmd,pud,p4d,pgd} ?


Because I'll need to look up the order of the names after the pmd :)
The gmap mostly works with s390 names.

I'm not totally opposed to that but I also don't see a clear benefit.




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux