Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: rmBSY0RNXPljD9k+8ct1CYYtHfZtmaxSIXNzZno7tG2spfwcTSRlLVwDZC6vV8hEI7pLz3xUcC
 3VUvNys7pwyQ==
IronPort-SDR: 4hkITZZ/K0G4MetaEbwAE6Nxw48gyIYvzAyAYdal1lP/MXST6Zu1rdbbIxBs7Qt9trstIqwZj8
 P5RkZYML9mXg==
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 06:50:10 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        Jordan Hand <jorhand@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>,
        Chunyang Hui <sanqian.hcy@antfin.com>,
        Seth Moore <sethmo@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, asapek@google.com,
        cedric.xing@intel.com, chenalexchen@google.com,
        conradparker@google.com, cyhanish@google.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, kai.huang@intel.com, kai.svahn@intel.com,
        kmoy@google.com, ludloff@google.com, luto@kernel.org,
        nhorman@redhat.com, puiterwijk@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, yaozhangx@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 16/24] x86/sgx: Add a page reclaimer
Message-ID: <20200929035010.GB301037@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200915112842.897265-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200915112842.897265-17-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200922104538.GE22660@zn.tnic>
 <20200922140314.GA164527@linux.intel.com>
 <20200929011438.GA31167@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200929011438.GA31167@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 06:14:39PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:03:23PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:45:38PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > +	spin_lock(&sgx_active_page_list_lock);
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < SGX_NR_TO_SCAN; i++) {
> > > > +		if (list_empty(&sgx_active_page_list))
> > > 
> > > Isn't it enough to do this once, i.e., not in the loop? You're holding
> > > sgx_active_page_list_lock...
> 
> Argh, I missed this until I looked at Jarkko's updated tree.
> 
> The reason for checking list_empty() on every iteration is that the loop is
> greedy, i.e. it tries to grab and reclaim up to 16 (SGX_NR_TO_SCAN) EPC pages
> at a time.
> 
> > I think that would make sense. Distantly analogous to the EINIT
> > discussion. Too complex code for yet to be known problem workloads I'd
> > say.
> 
> Nooooo.  Please no.

I added this comment in the beginning of the sgx_reclaim_pages() based
on your response:

/*
 * Take a fixed number of pages from the head of the active page pool and
 * reclaim them to the enclave's private shmem files. Skip the pages, which have
 * been accessed since the last scan. Move those pages to the tail of active
 * page pool so that the pages get scanned in LRU like fashion.
 *
 * Batch process a chunk of pages (at the moment 16) in order to degrade amount
 * of IPI's and ETRACK's potentially required. sgx_encl_ewb() does degrade a bit
 * among the HW threads with three stage EWB pipeline (EWB, ETRACK + EWB and IPI
 * + EWB) but not sufficiently. Reclaiming one page at a time would also be
 * problematic as it would increase the lock contention too much, which would
 * halt forward progress.
 */

And reverted reclaimer patch as it was. Do you have anything in mind
that I should add or modify in it?

/Jarkko