[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <op.2jetwkvkwjvjmi@hhuan26-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:25:22 -0600
From: "Haitao Huang" <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "Jarkko Sakkinen"
<jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: anakrish@...rosoft.com, bp@...en8.de, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
chrisyan@...rosoft.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
kristen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, mikko.ylinen@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com,
mkoutny@...e.com, seanjc@...gle.com, sohil.mehta@...el.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, tj@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
yangjie@...rosoft.com, zhanb@...rosoft.com, zhiquan1.li@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/sgx: Remove 'reclaim' boolean parameters
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:42:29 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
wrote:
> On Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 3:56 PM UTC, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 2/19/24 07:39, Haitao Huang wrote:
>> > Remove all boolean parameters for 'reclaim' from the function
>> > sgx_alloc_epc_page() and its callers by making two versions of each
>> > function.
>> >
>> > Also opportunistically remove non-static declaration of
>> > __sgx_alloc_epc_page() and a typo
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>
>> > Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
>> > ---
>> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++------
>> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h | 6 ++-
>> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c | 23 ++++++++---
>> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 68
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h | 4 +-
>> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/virt.c | 2 +-
>> > 6 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>
>> Jarkko, did this turn out how you expected?
>>
>> I think passing around a function pointer to *only* communicate 1 bit of
>> information is a _bit_ overkill here.
>>
>> Simply replacing the bool with:
>>
>> enum sgx_reclaim {
>> SGX_NO_RECLAIM,
>> SGX_DO_RECLAIM
>> };
>>
>> would do the same thing. Right?
>>
>> Are you sure you want a function pointer for this?
>
> To look this in context I drafted quickly two branches representing
> imaginary next version of the patch set.
>
> I guess this would simpler and totally sufficient approach.
>
> With this approach I'd then change also:
>
> [PATCH v9 04/15] x86/sgx: Implement basic EPC misc cgroup functionality
>
> And add the enum-parameter already in that patch with just "no reclaim"
> enum. I.e. then 10/15 will add only "do reclaim" and the new
> functionality.
>
> BR, Jarkko
>
Thanks. My understanding is:
1) For this patch, replace the boolean with the enum as Dave suggested. No
two versions of the same functions. And this is a prerequisite for the
cgroup series, positioned before [PATCH v9 04/15]
2) For [PATCH v9 04/15], pass a hard coded SGX_NO_RECLAIM to
sgx_epc_cg_try_charge() from sgx_alloc_epc_page().
3) For [PATCH v9 10/15], remove the hard coded value, pass the reclaim
enum parameter value from sgx_alloc_epc_page() to sgx_epc_cg_try_charge()
and add the reclaim logic.
I'll send patches soon. But please let me know if I misunderstood.
Thanks
Haitao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists