On Mon Oct 30, 2023 at 8:20 PM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
> From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com>
>
> Change sgx_reclaim_pages() to use a list rather than an array for
> storing the epc_pages which will be reclaimed. This change is needed
> to transition to the LRU implementation for EPC cgroup support.
>
> When the EPC cgroup is implemented, the reclaiming process will do a
> pre-order tree walk for the subtree starting from the limit-violating
> cgroup. When each node is visited, candidate pages are selected from
> its "reclaimable" LRU list and moved into this temporary list. Passing a
> list from node to node for temporary storage in this walk is more
> straightforward than using an array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com>
> Co-developed-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kris...@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kris...@linux.intel.com>
> Co-developed-by: Haitao Huang<haitao.hu...@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang<haitao.hu...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Sean Christopherson <sea...@google.com>
> ---
> V6:
> - Remove extra list_del_init and style fix (Kai)
>
> V4:
> - Changes needed for patch reordering
> - Revised commit message
>
> V3:
> - Removed list wrappers
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 35 +++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> index e27ac73d8843..33bcba313d40 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> @@ -296,12 +296,11 @@ static void sgx_reclaimer_write(struct sgx_epc_page
> *epc_page,
> */
> static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> {
> - struct sgx_epc_page *chunk[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN];
> struct sgx_backing backing[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN];
> + struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page, *tmp;
> struct sgx_encl_page *encl_page;
> - struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page;
> pgoff_t page_index;
> - int cnt = 0;
> + LIST_HEAD(iso);
> int ret;
> int i;
>
> @@ -317,7 +316,7 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
>
> if (kref_get_unless_zero(&encl_page->encl->refcount) != 0) {
> sgx_epc_page_set_state(epc_page,
> SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIM_IN_PROGRESS);
> - chunk[cnt++] = epc_page;
> + list_move_tail(&epc_page->list, &iso);
> } else
> /* The owner is freeing the page. No need to add the
> * page back to the list of reclaimable pages.
> @@ -326,8 +325,11 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> }
> spin_unlock(&sgx_global_lru.lock);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> - epc_page = chunk[i];
> + if (list_empty(&iso))
> + return;
> +
> + i = 0;
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(epc_page, tmp, &iso, list) {
> encl_page = epc_page->owner;
>
> if (!sgx_reclaimer_age(epc_page))
> @@ -342,6 +344,7 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> goto skip;
> }
>
> + i++;
> encl_page->desc |= SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_RECLAIMED;
> mutex_unlock(&encl_page->encl->lock);
> continue;
> @@ -349,27 +352,19 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> skip:
> spin_lock(&sgx_global_lru.lock);
> sgx_epc_page_set_state(epc_page, SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMABLE);
> - list_add_tail(&epc_page->list, &sgx_global_lru.reclaimable);
> + list_move_tail(&epc_page->list, &sgx_global_lru.reclaimable);
> spin_unlock(&sgx_global_lru.lock);
>
> kref_put(&encl_page->encl->refcount, sgx_encl_release);
> -
> - chunk[i] = NULL;
> - }
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> - epc_page = chunk[i];
> - if (epc_page)
> - sgx_reclaimer_block(epc_page);
> }
>
> - for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> - epc_page = chunk[i];
> - if (!epc_page)
> - continue;
> + list_for_each_entry(epc_page, &iso, list)
> + sgx_reclaimer_block(epc_page);
>
> + i = 0;
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(epc_page, tmp, &iso, list) {
> encl_page = epc_page->owner;
> - sgx_reclaimer_write(epc_page, &backing[i]);
> + sgx_reclaimer_write(epc_page, &backing[i++]);
Couldn't you alternatively "&backing[--i]" and not reset i to zero
before the loop?
>
> kref_put(&encl_page->encl->refcount, sgx_encl_release);
> sgx_epc_page_reset_state(epc_page);
BR, Jarkko
