Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 03/28] x86/sgx: Add 'struct sgx_epc_lru_lists' to encapsulate lru list(s) | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:35:36 -0500 | From | "Haitao Huang" <> |
| |
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:31:58 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@intel.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
| |