On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 08:07:24AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > Yes but obviously I cannot promise that I'll accept this as it is > > until I see the final version > > Are you saying you prefer *this version with spinlock* vs. > simpler version that utilizes the fact that sgx_nr_free_pages is changed > into tracking of number of used pages?
I don't know really what I do prefer. Maybe +1 version would make sense where you keep with the approach you've chosen (used pages) and better rationalize why it is mandatory, and why free pages would be worse? > > > > > Also you probably should use mutex given the loop where we cannot > > temporarily exit the lock (like e.g. in keyrings gc we can). > > Not sure I understand this, could you please elaborate why do I need an > additional mutex here? Or are you suggesting switching spinlock to mutex? In your code example you had a loop inside spinlock, which was based on a return code of an opcode, i.e. potentially infinite loop. I'd like to remind you that the hardware I have is NUC7 from 2018 so you really have to nail how things will work semantically as I can only think these things only in theoretical level ;-) [1] > > Best Regards, > Elena. > [1] https://social.kernel.org/notice/AsUbsYH0T4bTcUSdUW BR, Jarkko
