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.
