On 12/2/22 14:17, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 13:45 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 12/2/22 13:37, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
>>>>> +static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + __sgx_reclaim_pages();
>>>>> + cond_resched();
>>>>> +}
>>>> Why bother with the wrapper? Can't we just put cond_resched() in
>>>> the
>>>> existing sgx_reclaim_pages()?
>>> Because sgx_reclaim_direct() needs to call sgx_reclaim_pages()
>>> but not do the cond_resched(). It was this or add a boolean or
>>> something to let caller's opt out of the resched.
>>
>> Is there a reason sgx_reclaim_direct() *can't* or shouldn't call
>> cond_resched()?
>
> Yes, it is due to performance concerns. It is explained most succinctly
> by Reinette here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/a4eb5ab0-bf83-17a4-8bc0-a90aaf438a8e@xxxxxxxxx/
I think I'd much rather have 3 cond_resched()s in the code that
effectively self-document than one __something() in there that's a bit
of a mystery.
Everyone knows what cond_resched() means.
