[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66b93a394bbeb6cc23860efe61a1771ee57b86e5.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 07:56:39 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "Lu, Aaron" <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>, "Luo, Zhimin"
<zhimin.luo@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Fix deadloop in __sgx_alloc_epc_page()
Actually run spell check this time ...
On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 10:38 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> When current node doesn't have a EPC section configured by firmware and
"current node" -> "the current node"
"a EPC section" -> "an EPC section"
> all other EPC sections memory are used up, CPU can stuck inside the
"EPC sections memory" -> "EPC sections"
"can stuck" -> "can get stuck"
> while loop in __sgx_alloc_epc_page() forever and soft lockup will happen.
> Note how nid_of_current will never equal to nid in that while loop because
> nid_of_current is not set in sgx_numa_mask.
>
> Also worth mentioning is that it's perfectly fine for firmware to not
> seup an EPC section on a node. Setting an EPC section on each node can
> be good for performance but that's not a requirement functionality wise.
>
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists