> +static inline bool sgx_can_reclaim_global(void)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Now all EPC pages are still tracked in the @sgx_global_lru, so only
> + * check @sgx_global_lru.
> + *
> + * When EPC pages are tracked in the actual per-cgroup LRUs,
> + * replace with sgx_cgroup_lru_empty(misc_cg_root()).
> + */
> + return !list_empty(&sgx_global_lru.reclaimable);
> +}
Firstly, sgx_cgroup_lru_empty() is only introduced in the next patch, so it's
wrong to mention it in the comment in _this_ patch.
It's weird to add the above comment here in this patch anyway, since ...
[...]
> +static void sgx_reclaim_pages_global(void)
> +{
> + sgx_reclaim_pages(&sgx_global_lru);
> }
... this function (which is no difference IMHO) doesn't have a similar comment
here.
The similar comment to this function is only added in the later "[PATCH v16
12/16] x86/sgx: Revise global reclamation for EPC cgroups":
static void sgx_reclaim_pages_global(struct mm_struct *charge_mm)
{
+ /*
+ * Now all EPC pages are still tracked in the @sgx_global_lru.
+ * Still reclaim from it.
+ *
+ * When EPC pages are tracked in the actual per-cgroup LRUs,
+ * sgx_cgroup_reclaim_pages_global() will be called.
+ */
sgx_reclaim_pages(&sgx_global_lru, charge_mm);
}
So if the comment of sgx_can_reclaim_global() were needed, it's more
reasonable to add it in the later patch where the comment for
sgx_reclaim_pages_global() is also added IMHO?
