Hi Jarkko, On 4/5/2022 11:42 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:13 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 4/5/2022 12:11 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 09:49:27AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: ... >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c >>>> index 6e2cb7564080..545da16bb3ea 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c >>>> @@ -370,6 +370,12 @@ static bool sgx_should_reclaim(unsigned long watermark) >>>> !list_empty(&sgx_active_page_list); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +void sgx_direct_reclaim(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + if (sgx_should_reclaim(SGX_NR_LOW_PAGES)) >>>> + sgx_reclaim_pages(); >>>> +} >>> >>> Please, instead open code this to both locations - not enough redundancy >>> to be worth of new function. Causes only unnecessary cross-referencing >>> when maintaining. Otherwise, I agree with the idea. >>> >> >> hmmm, that means the heart of the reclaimer (sgx_reclaim_pages()) would be >> made available for direct use from everywhere in the driver. I will look into this. >> >> Reinette >> > > It's a valid enough point. Let's keep it as it is :-) Will do. I plan to add Dave's suggested comments to sgx_direct_reclaim() that is introduced in this patch. > > Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> Thank you very much. Reinette