linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/28] x86/sgx: Add 'struct sgx_epc_lru

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: <op.18yrhmgswjvjmi@hhuan26-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:35:36 -0500
From:   "Haitao Huang" <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     "kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        "Li, Zhiquan1" <zhiquan1.li@...el.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/28] x86/sgx: Add 'struct sgx_epc_lru_lists' to
 encapsulate lru list(s)

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:31:58 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:

...
>> > Although briefly mentioned in the first patch, it would be better to  
>> put
>> > more
>> > background about the "reclaimable" and "non-reclaimable" thing here,
>> > focusing on
>> > _why_ we need multiple LRUs (presumably you mean two lists:  
>> reclaimable
>> > and non-
>> > reclaimable).
>> >
>> Sure I can add a little more background to introduce the
>> reclaimable/unreclaimable concept. But why we need multiple LRUs would  
>> be
>> self-evident in later patches, not sure I will add details here.
>
> In this case people will need to go to that patch to get some idea  
> first.  It
> doesn't seem hurt if you can explain why you need multiple LRUs here  
> first.
>
Will add.

...
>
> I didn't get the CHECK in my testing.  Not sure why.
>
> Anyway, I guess the comment can be useful if it is to explain why we  
> need to use
> spinlock or whatever lock.  But
>
> 	/* Must acquire this lock to access */
>
> doesn't explain why at all, thus doesn't look helpful to me.
>
> I guess you either need a better comment, or just remove it (it's  
> obvious that a
> lot of kernel code doesn't have a comment around spinlock_t).
>

I'll remove the comments.
Thanks
Haitao