Quoting David Hildenbrand (2023-07-27 09:37:21)
[...]
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 2bbc3d54959d..d35e03e82d3d 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -777,6 +777,12 @@ struct kvm_vm_stat {
> > u64 inject_service_signal;
> > u64 inject_virtio;
> > u64 aen_forward;
> > + u64 gmap_shadow_acquire;
> > + u64 gmap_shadow_r1_te;
> > + u64 gmap_shadow_r2_te;
> > + u64 gmap_shadow_r3_te;
> > + u64 gmap_shadow_sg_te;
> > + u64 gmap_shadow_pg_te;
>
> Is "te" supposed to stand for "table entry" ?
Yes.
> If so, I'd suggest to just call this gmap_shadow_pg_entry etc.
Janosch, since you suggested the current naming, are you OK with _entry?
[...]
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> > index 8d6b765abf29..beb3be037722 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> > @@ -1221,6 +1221,7 @@ static int acquire_gmap_shadow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > if (IS_ERR(gmap))
> > return PTR_ERR(gmap);
> > gmap->private = vcpu->kvm;
> > + vcpu->kvm->stat.gmap_shadow_acquire++;
>
>
> Do you rather want to have events for
>
> gmap_shadow_reuse (if gmap_shadow_valid() succeeded in that function)
> gmap_shadow_create (if we have to create a new one via gmap_shadow)
>
> ?
Yeah, good suggestion. I'll add that.
