| Message ID | 20201208210829.101324-1-raspl@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tools/kvm_stat: Exempt time-based counters | expand |
On 08/12/20 22:08, Stefan Raspl wrote: > From: Stefan Raspl<raspl@de.ibm.com> > > The new counters halt_poll_success_ns and halt_poll_fail_ns do not count > events. Instead they provide a time, and mess up our statistics. Therefore, > we should exclude them. What is the issue exactly? Do they mess up the formatting? Paolo > Removal is currently implemented with an exempt list. If more counters like > these appear, we can think about a more general rule like excluding all > fields name "*_ns", in case that's a standing convention. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Raspl<raspl@linux.ibm.com> > Tested-and-reported-by: Christian Borntraeger<borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > ---
On 09.12.20 10:08, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 08/12/20 22:08, Stefan Raspl wrote: >> From: Stefan Raspl<raspl@de.ibm.com> >> >> The new counters halt_poll_success_ns and halt_poll_fail_ns do not count >> events. Instead they provide a time, and mess up our statistics. Therefore, >> we should exclude them. > > What is the issue exactly? Do they mess up the formatting? they mess up the percentage (they are 99% almost all the time) > > Paolo > >> Removal is currently implemented with an exempt list. If more counters like >> these appear, we can think about a more general rule like excluding all >> fields name "*_ns", in case that's a standing convention. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Raspl<raspl@linux.ibm.com> >> Tested-and-reported-by: Christian Borntraeger<borntraeger@de.ibm.com> >> --- >
On 08/12/20 22:08, Stefan Raspl wrote: > From: Stefan Raspl <raspl@de.ibm.com> > > The new counters halt_poll_success_ns and halt_poll_fail_ns do not count > events. Instead they provide a time, and mess up our statistics. Therefore, > we should exclude them. > Removal is currently implemented with an exempt list. If more counters like > these appear, we can think about a more general rule like excluding all > fields name "*_ns", in case that's a standing convention. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Raspl <raspl@linux.ibm.com> > Tested-and-reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > --- > tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat b/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat > index d199a3694be8..b0bf56c5f120 100755 > --- a/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat > +++ b/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat > @@ -742,7 +742,11 @@ class DebugfsProvider(Provider): > The fields are all available KVM debugfs files > > """ > - return self.walkdir(PATH_DEBUGFS_KVM)[2] > + exempt_list = ['halt_poll_fail_ns', 'halt_poll_success_ns'] > + fields = [field for field in self.walkdir(PATH_DEBUGFS_KVM)[2] > + if field not in exempt_list] > + > + return fields > > def update_fields(self, fields_filter): > """Refresh fields, applying fields_filter""" > Queued, thanks. Paolo
diff --git a/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat b/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat index d199a3694be8..b0bf56c5f120 100755 --- a/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat +++ b/tools/kvm/kvm_stat/kvm_stat @@ -742,7 +742,11 @@ class DebugfsProvider(Provider): The fields are all available KVM debugfs files """ - return self.walkdir(PATH_DEBUGFS_KVM)[2] + exempt_list = ['halt_poll_fail_ns', 'halt_poll_success_ns'] + fields = [field for field in self.walkdir(PATH_DEBUGFS_KVM)[2] + if field not in exempt_list] + + return fields def update_fields(self, fields_filter): """Refresh fields, applying fields_filter"""