Hi Jarkko,
On 4/5/2022 11:35 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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.
Sure, will do.
This may not help grepping all reclaimer functions though since
the code is not consistent in this regard.
Reinette
