On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:25 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/5/22 10:13, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > > +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.
>
> I like the change. It's not about reducing code redundancy, it's about
> *describing* what the code does. Each location could have:
>
> /* Enter direct SGX reclaim: */
> if (sgx_should_reclaim(SGX_NR_LOW_PAGES))
> sgx_reclaim_pages();
>
> Or, it could just be:
>
> sgx_direct_reclaim();
>
> Which also provides a logical choke point to add comments, like:
>
> /*
> * sgx_direct_reclaim() should be called in locations where SGX
> * memory resources might be low and might be needed in order
> * to make forward progress.
> */
> void sgx_direct_reclaim(void)
> {
> ...
Maybe cutting hairs but could it be "sgx_reclaim_direct"? Rationale
is easier grepping of reclaimer functions, e.g. when tracing.
BR, Jarkko
