[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z2NArA9PtR7OdIs6@google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:37:48 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] KVM: selftests: Precisely track number of
dirty/clear pages for each iteration
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 17:07 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Track and print the number of dirty and clear pages for each iteration.
> > This provides parity between all log modes, and will allow collecting the
> > dirty ring multiple times per iteration without spamming the console.
> >
> > Opportunistically drop the "Dirtied N pages" print, which is redundant
> > and wrong. For the dirty ring testcase, the vCPU isn't guaranteed to
> > complete a loop. And when the vCPU does complete a loot, there are no
> Typo
> > guarantees that it has *dirtied* that many pages; because the writes are
> > to random address, the vCPU may have written the same page over and over,
> > i.e. only dirtied one page.
>
> Counting how many times a vCPU wrote is also a valid statistic
>
> I think it would be the best to include it as well (e.g call it number of
> loops that vCPU did).
Heh, I originally had it that way, but dropped it because it didn't seem all that
interesting. I'll add it back.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists