[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yy2naAZfiAyP5H/a@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:32:40 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/20] x86/sgx: Call cond_resched() at the end of
sgx_reclaim_pages()
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 10:10:38AM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
>
> Move the invocation of post-reclaim cond_resched() from the callers of
> sgx_reclaim_pages() into the reclaim path itself. sgx_reclaim_pages()
> is always called in a loop and is always followed by a call to
> cond_resched(). This will hold true for the EPC cgroup as well, which
> adds even more calls to sgx_reclaim_pages() and thus cond_resched().
This would be in my opinion better:
"
In order to avoid repetion of cond_sched() in ksgxd() and
sgx_alloc_epc_page(), move the call inside sgx_reclaim_pages().
This will hold true for the EPC cgroup as well, which adds more
call sites sgx_reclaim_pages().
"
This way it is dead obvious and is better description because
it enumerates the consequences (i.e. call sites).
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists