On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:15:46PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:08:09PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > It would greatly reduce the complexity of the flow. Would be much easier > > to do fallback code paths. We have three trial EWB approach, which > > should prevent already unnecesaary ETRACK's and IPI's. > > I recall that I used a cluster ages ago to do minimize ETRACK's and > IPI's. I implemented three trial EWB during the Spring 2018 when the > reclaimer code was heavily refined but failed to notice that it rendered > cluster's meaningless... One potential caveat here: EBLOCK's could never sequence before ETRACK with a single thread. However, the existing code does work in parallel already i.e. there can be multiple sgx_alloc_page() calls on different going on. This change would make sgx_alloc_page() success or fail (in the rare case of no pages to swap) always in constant time and these would group naturally behind ETRACK's. What I would do for the reclaimer thread would be to convert it from a kthread to a multi-threaded work queue (albeit even current single threaded approach might work reasonably well as it goes in parallel with the sgx_alloc_page() calls). /Jarkko
