From: "Bojun Zhu" <zhubojun.zbj@antgroup.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
"Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, "Chatre,
Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
"刘双(轩屹)" <ls123674@antgroup.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] x86/sgx: Explicitly give up the CPU in EDMM's ioctl() to avoid softlockup
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:23:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <F7EBCAA4-6412-42AE-9A56-36914E22B4A1@antgroup.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <30415ed3-a05a-454d-9077-c8674617f291@intel.com>
Hi Dave,
Appreciate for your review!
> On Apr 27, 2024, at 01:06, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/26/24 07:18, Bojun Zhu wrote:
>> for (c = 0 ; c < modp->length; c += PAGE_SIZE) {
>> + if (sgx_check_signal_and_resched()) {
>> + if (!c)
>> + ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
>> +
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>
> This construct is rather fugly. Let's not perpetuate it, please. Why
> not do:
>
> int ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
>
> ...
> for (c = 0 ; c < modp->length; c += PAGE_SIZE) {
> if (sgx_check_signal_and_resched())
> goto out;
>
> Then, voila, when c==0 on the first run through the loop, you'll get a
> ret=-ERESTARTSYS.
>
Okay, I will refine it later.
> But honestly, it seems kinda silly to annotate all these loops with
> explicit cond_resched()s. I'd much rather do this once and, for
> instance, just wrap the enclave locks:
>
> - mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
> + sgx_lock_enclave(encl);
>
> and then have the lock function do the rescheds. I assume that
> mutex_lock() isn't doing this generically for performance reasons. But
> we don't care in SGX land and can just resched to our heart's content.
`mutex_lock(&encl->lock)` appears in everywhere in SGX in-tree driver.
But it seems that we only need to additionally invoke `cond_resched()` for
the sgx_enclave_{restrict_permissions | modify_types | remove_pages }
and sgx_ioc_add_pages()’s ioctl()s.
Shall we replace all the `mutex_lock(&encl->lock) with `sgx_lock_enclave(encl)`
in SGX in-tree driver and then wrap reschedule operation in
`sgx_lock_enclave()` ?
Regards,
Bojun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-29 2:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-26 14:18 [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] x86/sgx: Explicitly give up the CPU in EDMM's ioctl() to avoid softlockup Bojun Zhu
2024-04-26 14:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] " Bojun Zhu
2024-04-26 17:06 ` Dave Hansen
2024-04-29 2:23 ` Bojun Zhu [this message]
2024-04-28 22:04 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=F7EBCAA4-6412-42AE-9A56-36914E22B4A1@antgroup.com \
--to=zhubojun.zbj@antgroup.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ls123674@antgroup.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).