On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 06:23:40AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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 on differen threads /Jarkko
