On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:10:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:03 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/17/18 11:55 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> You're effectively rebuilding reverse-mapping infrastructure here. It's
> > >> a frequent thing for the core VM to need to go from 'struct page' back
> > >> to the page tables mapping it. For that we go (logically)
> > >> page->{anon_vma,mapping}->vma->vm_mm->pagetable.
> > > This is a bit outside my expertise here, but doesn't
> > > unmap_mapping_range() do exactly what SGX wants?
> >
> > There's no 'struct page' for enclave memory as it stands. That means no
> > page cache, and that means there's no 'struct address_space *mapping' in
> > the first place.
> >
> > Basically, the choice was made a long time ago to have SGX's memory
> > management live outside the core VM. I've waffled back and forth on it,
> > but I do still think this is the right way to do it.
>
> AFAICS a lack of struct page isn't a problem. The core code seems to
> understand that address_space objects might cover non-struct-page
> memory. Morally, enclave memory is a lot like hot-unpluggable PCI
> space.
I'm fine using it if it works. Will try it for v19.
/Jarkko
