linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/18] x86/sgx: Call cond_resched() at the end of sgx_reclaim

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <37de083d-a63b-b2ff-d00a-e890a1ba5eea@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:33:22 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        jarkko@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     zhiquan1.li@...el.com, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/18] x86/sgx: Call cond_resched() at the end of
 sgx_reclaim_pages()

On 12/2/22 10:36, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> 
> In order to avoid repetition of cond_resched() in ksgxd() and
> sgx_alloc_epc_page(), move the invocation of post-reclaim cond_resched()
> inside sgx_reclaim_pages(). Except in the case of sgx_reclaim_direct(),
> 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(). Calls to sgx_reclaim_direct() may be performance
> sensitive. Allow sgx_reclaim_direct() to avoid the cond_resched()
> call by moving the original sgx_reclaim_pages() call to
> __sgx_reclaim_pages() and then have sgx_reclaim_pages() become a
> wrapper around that call with a cond_resched().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 17 +++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> index 160c8dbee0ab..ffce6fc70a1f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static void sgx_reclaimer_write(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page,
>   * problematic as it would increase the lock contention too much, which would
>   * halt forward progress.
>   */
> -static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> +static void __sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
>  {
>  	struct sgx_epc_page *chunk[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN];
>  	struct sgx_backing backing[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN];
> @@ -369,6 +369,12 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> +{
> +	__sgx_reclaim_pages();
> +	cond_resched();
> +}

Why bother with the wrapper?  Can't we just put cond_resched() in the
existing sgx_reclaim_pages()?