On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 11:43 +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 00:35 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:12:17AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:10:56AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 09:36:15AM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2021-03-10 at 17:11 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:59:17AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > > > > On 3/3/21 7:03 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > > > > > > index 52d070fb4c9a..ed99c60024dc 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -305,7 +305,6 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > struct sgx_epc_page *chunk[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN];
> > > > > > > > struct sgx_backing backing[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN];
> > > > > > > > - struct sgx_epc_section *section;
> > > > > > > > struct sgx_encl_page *encl_page;
> > > > > > > > struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page;
> > > > > > > > pgoff_t page_index;
> > > > > > > > @@ -378,11 +377,7 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> > > > > > > > kref_put(&encl_page->encl->refcount, sgx_encl_release);
> > > > > > > > epc_page->flags &= ~SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - section = &sgx_epc_sections[epc_page->section];
> > > > > > > > - spin_lock(§ion->lock);
> > > > > > > > - list_add_tail(&epc_page->list, §ion->page_list);
> > > > > > > > - section->free_cnt++;
> > > > > > > > - spin_unlock(§ion->lock);
> > > > > > > > + sgx_free_epc_page(epc_page);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In current upstream (3fb6d0e00e), sgx_free_epc_page() calls __eremove().
> > > > > > > This code does not call __eremove(). That seems to be changing
> > > > > > > behavior where none was intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EREMOVE does not matter here, as it doesn't in almost all most of the sites
> > > > > > where sgx_free_epc_page() is used in the driver. It does nothing to an
> > > > > > uninitialized pages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. EREMOVE on uninitialized pages does nothing, so a more reasonable way is to
> > > > > just NOT call EREMOVE (your original code), since it is absolutely unnecessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see ANY reason we should call EREMOVE here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually w/o my patch to split EREMOVE out of sgx_free_epc_page(), it then makes
> > > > > perfect sense to have new sgx_free_epc_page() here.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two patches that I posted originally for Kai's series took EREMOVE out
> > > > > > of sgx_free_epc_page() and put an explicit EREMOVE where it is actually
> > > > > > needed, but for reasons unknown to me, that change is gone.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not gone. It goes into a new sgx_encl_free_epc_page(), which is exactly the same
> > > > > as current sgx_free_epc_page() which as EREMOVE, instead of putting EREMOVE into a
> > > > > dedicated sgx_reset_epc_page(), as you did in your series:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/20210113233541.17669-1-jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > >
> > > > > However, your change has side effort: it always put page back into free pool, even
> > > > > EREMOVE fails. To make your change w/o having any functional change, it has to be:
> > > > >
> > > > > if(!sgx_reset_epc_page())
> > > > > sgx_free_epc_page();
> > > >
> > > > OK, great, your patch set uses the wrapper only in the necessary call
> > > > sites. Sorry, I overlooked this part.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, it knowingly does that. I considered either as equally harmful
> > > > side-ffects when I implemented. Either can only trigger, when there is a
> > > > bug in the kernel code.
> > > >
> > > > It *could* do what that snippet suggest but it's like "out of the frying pan,
> > > > into the fire" kind of change.
> > > >
> > > > Since NUMA patch set anyway requires to have a global dirty list, I think
> > > > the better way to deal with this, would be to declare a new global in the
> > > > patch under discussion:
> > > >
> > > > static struct list_head sgx_dirty_list;
> > >
> > > sgx_dirty_page_list
> >
> > Actually, I think it is good as it is now. Please do nothing :-)
> >
> > Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I can continue from that and improve the fallback further. Not perfect, but
> > good enough.
>
> Great. Thank you Jarkko.
>
> I'll add your Acked-by and repost it since I also made a mistake in copy-paste:)
>
Hmm.. This patch was originally from you, so it has From you, and has your SoB. It
also has Co-developed-by me, but does it still require Acked-by from you?
Anyway I have added it to my local. Let me know if I should remove it.
