On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:06:02 -0600, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg)
+int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg, bool
reclaim)
{
- return misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_SGX_EPC, epc_cg->cg, PAGE_SIZE);
+ for (;;) {
+ if (!misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_SGX_EPC, epc_cg->cg,
+ PAGE_SIZE))
+ break;
+
+ if (sgx_epc_cgroup_lru_empty(epc_cg->cg))
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ if (signal_pending(current))
+ return -ERESTARTSYS;
+
+ if (!reclaim) {
+ queue_work(sgx_epc_cg_wq, &epc_cg->reclaim_work);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
+ if (!sgx_epc_cgroup_reclaim_pages(epc_cg->cg, false))
+ /* All pages were too young to reclaim, try again a little later */
+ schedule();
+ }
+
+ return 0;
}
Seems this code change is 90% similar to the existing code in the
sgx_alloc_epc_page():
...
for ( ; ; ) {
page = __sgx_alloc_epc_page();
if (!IS_ERR(page)) {
page->owner = owner;
break;
}
if (list_empty(&sgx_active_page_list))
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
if (!reclaim) {
page = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
break;
}
if (signal_pending(current)) {
page = ERR_PTR(-ERESTARTSYS);
break;
}
sgx_reclaim_pages();
cond_resched();
}
...
Is it better to move the logic/code change in try_charge() out to
sgx_alloc_epc_page() to unify them?
IIUC, the logic is quite similar: When you either failed to allocate one
page,
or failed to charge one page, you try to reclaim EPC page(s) from the
current
EPC cgroup, either directly or indirectly.
No?
Only these lines are the same:
if (!reclaim) {
page = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
break;
}
if (signal_pending(current)) {
page = ERR_PTR(-ERESTARTSYS);
break;
}
In sgx_alloc_epc_page() we do global reclamation but here we do per-cgroup
reclamation. That's why the logic of other lines is different though they
look similar due to similar function names. For the global reclamation we
need consider case in that cgroup is not enabled. Similarly
list_empty(&sgx_active_page_list) would have to be changed to check root
cgroup if cgroups enabled otherwise check global LRU. The (!reclaim) case
is also different. So I don't see an obvious good way to abstract those
to get meaningful savings.
Thanks
Haitao
