Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/sgx: Add accounting for tracking overcommit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 09:17:03AM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-01-07 at 14:25 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 10:26:18AM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Jarkko, thanks for your review,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2021-12-29 at 01:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 09:46:39AM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * sgx_charge_mem() - charge for a page used for backing
> > > > > storage
> > > > > + *
> > > > 
> > > > Please remove this empty line:
> > > > 
> > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt
> > > 
> > > I read this to be that there should be an empty line after the
> > > short
> > > description/arg list but before the longer description. I think for
> > > functions without args this is the proper layout. It also is more
> > > readable.
> > > 
> > > > > + * Backing storage usage is capped by the
> > > > > sgx_nr_available_backing_pages.
> > > > > + * If the backing storage usage is over the overcommit limit,
> > > > 
> > > > Where does this verb "charge" come from?
> > > 
> > > Charge in this context means that some available backing pages are
> > > now
> > > not available because they are in use. It feels appropriate to me
> > > to
> > > use "charge/uncharge" verbs for this action, unless you think it's
> > > confusing somehow.
> > 
> > OK, it's cool.
> > 
> > I'm still wondering why you need extra variable given that
> > sgx_nr_backing_available_pages is signed. You could mark the
> > feature being disabled by setting it to -1.
> > 
> > It might cosmetically improve readability to have a boolean but
> > for practical uses (e.g. eBPF tracing scripts) it only adds extra
> > complexity.
> > 
> > /Jarkko
> 
> I can see your point. Since Boris objected to the module param, the
> next version will not have a way to disable limits at all, so I am
> deleting that boolean all together.

Ok, cool, I'm looking forward for the next version.

/Jarkko



[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux