On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:10:36 -0600, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 13:06 -0800, Haitao Huang wrote:
From: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
When cgroup is enabled, all reclaimable pages will be tracked in cgroup
LRUs. The global reclaimer needs to start reclamation from the root
cgroup. Expose the top level cgroup reclamation function so the global
reclaimer can reuse it.
Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Co-developed-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
V8:
- Remove unneeded breaks in function declarations. (Jarkko)
V7:
- Split this out from the big patch, #10 in V6. (Dave, Kai)
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.h | 7 +++++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.c
index abf74fdb12b4..6e31f8727b8a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.c
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ bool sgx_epc_cgroup_lru_empty(struct misc_cg *root)
* @indirect: In ksgxd or EPC cgroup work queue context.
* Return: Number of pages reclaimed.
*/
-static unsigned int sgx_epc_cgroup_reclaim_pages(struct misc_cg *root,
bool indirect)
+unsigned int sgx_epc_cgroup_reclaim_pages(struct misc_cg *root, bool
indirect)
{
/*
* Attempting to reclaim only a few pages will often fail and is
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.h
b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.h
index d061cd807b45..5b3e8e1b8630 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/epc_cgroup.h
@@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ static inline int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct
sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg, bool
static inline void sgx_epc_cgroup_uncharge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup
*epc_cg) { }
static inline void sgx_epc_cgroup_init(void) { }
+
+static inline unsigned int sgx_epc_cgroup_reclaim_pages(struct misc_cg
*root, bool indirect)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
#else
struct sgx_epc_cgroup {
struct misc_cg *cg;
@@ -69,6 +74,8 @@ static inline void sgx_put_epc_cg(struct
sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg)
int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg, bool
reclaim);
void sgx_epc_cgroup_uncharge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg);
bool sgx_epc_cgroup_lru_empty(struct misc_cg *root);
+unsigned int sgx_epc_cgroup_reclaim_pages(struct misc_cg *root, bool
indirect);
+
void sgx_epc_cgroup_init(void);
#endif
I'd just prefer to merge patch such like this to the one that actually
uses the
exposed function. It's just couple of LOC and we don't deserve to read
these
repeated changelog and move back and forth between patches during review.
IIRC, Jarkko prefers exposing functions first in separate patch. Jarkko,
right?
Also I found your definition/expectation of self-contained patches is just
confusing or too constrained at least. I usually review each patch
separately without back and forth and then review them together to see if
they all make sense in terms of breakdown. My minimal expectation is
that a patch should not depend on future changes and should not break
current state of function. and
For this one I thought the idea was you verify if the API exposed make
sense without looking at how it is used in future. Then when you review
the usage patch, you see if the usage is reasonable.
I would really hesitate to merge patches at this point unless we all have
an agreement and have good/strong reasons or there is a hard rule about
this.
Thanks
Haitao
