On Wed Sep 4, 2024 at 4:39 AM EEST, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 07:05:40PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri Aug 30, 2024 at 9:14 AM EEST, Aaron Lu wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:44:13PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Thu Aug 29, 2024 at 5:38 AM EEST, Aaron Lu wrote: > > > > > When current node doesn't have a EPC section configured by firmware and > > > > > all other EPC sections memory are used up, CPU can stuck inside the > > > > > while loop in __sgx_alloc_epc_page() forever and soft lockup will happen. > > > > > Note how nid_of_current will never equal to nid in that while loop because > > > > ~~~~ > > > > > > > > Oh *that* while loop ;-) Please be more specific. > > > > > > What about: > > > Note how nid_of_current will never be equal to nid in the while loop that > > > searches an available EPC page from remote nodes because nid_of_current is > > > not set in sgx_numa_mask. > > > > That would work I think! > > While rewriting the changelog, I find it more natural to explain this > "while loop" when I first mentioned it, i.e. > > When the current node doesn't have an EPC section configured by firmware > and all other EPC sections are used up, CPU can get stuck inside the > while loop that looks for an available EPC page from remote nodes > indefinitely, leading to a soft lockup. Note how nid_of_current will > never be equal to nid in that while loop because nid_of_current is not > set in sgx_numa_mask. > > I hope this looks fine to you. Yes, it is. I just want the storyline to the commit message as a reminder why we did this, that's all. It helps a lot later on when having to look into commit history. BR, Jarkko
