On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 02:04:12PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> On 1/28/21 1:40 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I could bet some money that this does not bring any significant
> > performance gain.
> >
>
> Yes, this does not bring performance gains. This is not a change for
> performance, mainly to make the value of free_cnt look more accurate.
>
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 02:29:05PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> > > `section->free_cnt` represents the free page in sgx_epc_section,
> > > which is assigned once after initialization. In fact, just after the
> > > initialization is completed, the pages are in the `init_laundry_list`
> > > list and cannot be allocated. This needs to be recovered by EREMOVE
> > > of function sgx_sanitize_section() before it can be used as a page
> > > that can be allocated. The sgx_sanitize_section() will be called in
> > > the kernel thread ksgxd.
> > >
> > > This patch moves the initialization of `section->free_cnt` from the
> > > initialization function `sgx_setup_epc_section()` to the function
> > > `sgx_sanitize_section()`, and then accumulates the count after the
> >
> > Use single quotes instead of hyphens.
> > >> successful execution of EREMOVE. This seems to be more reasonable,
> > > free_cnt will also truly reflect the allocatable free pages in EPC.
> > >
> > > Sined-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > index 4465912174fd..e455ec7b3449 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ static void sgx_sanitize_section(struct sgx_epc_section *section)
> > > if (!ret) {
> > > spin_lock(§ion->lock);
> > > list_move(&page->list, §ion->page_list);
> > > + section->free_cnt++;
> > > spin_unlock(§ion->lock);
> >
> > Someone can try to allocate a page while sanitize process is in progress.
> >
> > I think it is better to keep critical sections in the form that when you
> > leave from one, the global state is legit.
> >
>
> Do you mean to move the critical section to protect the entire while loop?
> Of course, this is also possible, sanitize is a process only needed for
> initialization, and the possibility of conflict is very small.
>
> Best regards,
> Tianjia
The big picture of this change to me, to be frank is that it's completely
useless.
Please start with the picture.
/Jarkko
