On Tue, 2024-06-11 at 07:57 -0500, Haitao Huang wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:39:53 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static int __init sgx_init(void)
> > > if (!sgx_page_cache_init())
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > - if (!sgx_page_reclaimer_init()) {
> > > + if (!sgx_page_reclaimer_init() || !sgx_cgroup_init()) {
> > > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > goto err_page_cache;
> > > }
> >
> > Does it make more sense to move the sgx_cgroup_init() to the
> > sgx_drv_init()? The SGX cgroup only works for the driver side anyway.
> > In this case, if something went wrong in sgx_cgroup_init(), the
> > sgx_vepc_init() could still have a chance to work.
> >
>
> vepc reclamation is not done by cgroup/ksgxd but try_charge() won't work
> if user expecting cgroup to limit vepc allocation.
>
Oh ok.
> Would it be more
> consistent to just disable vepc, i.e., on system with MISC, sgx/vepc
> always go with cgroup enabled?
>
Yes fine to me.
>
