On 10/18/23 08:26, Haitao Huang wrote: > Maybe not in sense of killing something. My understanding memory.reclaim > does not necessarily invoke the OOM killer. But what I really intend to > say is we can have a separate knob for user to express the need for > reducing the current usage explicitly and keep "misc.max' non-preemptive > semantics intact. When we implement that new knob, then we can define > what kind of reclaim for that. Depending on vEPC implementation, it may > or may not involve killing VMs. But at least that semantics will be > explicit for user. I'm really worried that you're going for "perfect" semantics here. This is SGX. It's *NOT* getting heavy use and even fewer folks will ever apply cgroup controls to it. Can we please stick to simple, easily-coded rules here? I honestly don't think these corner cases matter all that much and there's been *WAY* too much traffic in this thread for what is ultimately not that complicated. Focus on *ONE* thing: 1. Admin sets a limit 2. Enclave is created 3. Enclave hits limit, allocation fails Nothing else matters. What if the admin lowers the limit on an already-created enclave? Nobody cares. Seriously. What about inducing reclaim? Nobody cares. What about vEPC? Doesn't matter, an enclave page is an enclave page.
