Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-72112-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:43:10 +0000
Message-Id: <CZ9F33MWM7CO.2W1QSM24ZN6RM@seitikki>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/sgx: Remove 'reclaim' boolean parameters
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Haitao Huang" <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>, "Dave Hansen"
 <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: <anakrish@microsoft.com>, <bp@alien8.de>, <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
 <chrisyan@microsoft.com>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <hpa@zytor.com>,
 <kristen@linux.intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org>, <mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com>,
 <mingo@redhat.com>, <mkoutny@suse.com>, <seanjc@google.com>,
 <sohil.mehta@intel.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, <tj@kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
 <yangjie@microsoft.com>, <zhanb@microsoft.com>, <zhiquan1.li@intel.com>
References: <CZ4FCQ633VLC.26Y7HUHGRSFB3@kernel.org>
 <20240219153957.9957-1-haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>
 <40f95b90-8698-42dd-89d7-cd73d1e311b1@intel.com>
 <CZ9CIP97661C.2WUZJNNCQUHE8@seitikki>
 <op.2jetwkvkwjvjmi@hhuan26-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.2jetwkvkwjvjmi@hhuan26-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>

On Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 10:25 PM UTC, Haitao Huang wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:42:29 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> =
=20
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 3:56 PM UTC, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 2/19/24 07:39, Haitao Huang wrote:
> >> > Remove all boolean parameters for 'reclaim' from the function
> >> > sgx_alloc_epc_page() and its callers by making two versions of each
> >> > function.
> >> >
> >> > Also opportunistically remove non-static declaration of
> >> > __sgx_alloc_epc_page() and a typo
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>
> >> > Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c  | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++------
> >> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h  |  6 ++-
> >> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c | 23 ++++++++---
> >> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c  | 68 =20
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h   |  4 +-
> >> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/virt.c  |  2 +-
> >> >  6 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Jarkko, did this turn out how you expected?
> >>
> >> I think passing around a function pointer to *only* communicate 1 bit =
of
> >> information is a _bit_ overkill here.
> >>
> >> Simply replacing the bool with:
> >>
> >> enum sgx_reclaim {
> >> 	SGX_NO_RECLAIM,
> >> 	SGX_DO_RECLAIM
> >> };
> >>
> >> would do the same thing.  Right?
> >>
> >> Are you sure you want a function pointer for this?
> >
> > To look this in context I drafted quickly two branches representing
> > imaginary next version of the patch set.
> >
> > I guess this would simpler and totally sufficient approach.
> >
> > With this approach I'd then change also:
> >
> > [PATCH v9 04/15] x86/sgx: Implement basic EPC misc cgroup functionality
> >
> > And add the enum-parameter already in that patch with just "no reclaim"
> > enum. I.e. then 10/15 will add only "do reclaim" and the new
> > functionality.
> >
> > BR, Jarkko
> >
>
> Thanks. My understanding is:
>
> 1) For this patch, replace the boolean with the enum as Dave suggested. N=
o =20
> two versions of the same functions. And this is a prerequisite for the =
=20
> cgroup series, positioned before [PATCH v9 04/15]
>
> 2) For [PATCH v9 04/15], pass a hard coded SGX_NO_RECLAIM to =20
> sgx_epc_cg_try_charge() from sgx_alloc_epc_page().

Yup, this will make the whole patch set also a bit leaner as the API
does not change in the middle.

>
> 3) For [PATCH v9 10/15], remove the hard coded value, pass the reclaim =
=20
> enum parameter value from sgx_alloc_epc_page() to  sgx_epc_cg_try_charge(=
) =20
> and add the reclaim logic.
>
> I'll send patches soon. But please let me know if I misunderstood.


BR, Jarkko