From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Count guest exit due to various reasons Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:44:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20151026154401.GF20298@cbox> References: <1445155482-12482-1-git-send-email-amittomer25@gmail.com> <20151022211601.GA25602@cbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6E640FA2 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JyQkWEsNsIhQ for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:40:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B1140F9B for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lffv3 with SMTP id v3so153486784lff.0 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: Amit Tomer Cc: marc.zyngier@arm.com, Andre Przywara , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu 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