Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/sgx: Remove 'reclaim' boolean parameters | Date | Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:25:22 -0600 | From | "Haitao Huang" <> |
| |
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:42:29 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.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@linux.intel.com> >> > Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.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
| |