lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 12/18] x86/sgx: Add EPC OOM path to forcefully reclaim EPC
    Hello Haitao.

    On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 07:58:02AM -0500, Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    > AFAIK, before we introducing max_write() callback in this series, no misc
    > controller would possibly enforce the limit when misc.max is reduced. e.g. I
    > don't think CVMs be killed when ASID limit is reduced and the cgroup was
    > full before limit is reduced.

    Yes, misccontroller was meant to be simple, current >= max serves to
    prevent new allocations.

    FTR, at some point in time memory.max was considered for reclaim control
    of regular pages but it turned out to be too coarse (and OOM killing
    processes if amount was not sensed correctly) and this eventually
    evolved into specific mechanism of memory.reclaim.
    So I'm mentioning this should that be an interface with better semantic
    for your use case (and misc.max writes can remain non-preemptive).

    One more note -- I was quite confused when I read in the rest of the
    series about OOM and _kill_ing but then I found no such measure in the
    code implementation. So I would suggest two terminological changes:

    - the basic premise of the series (00/18) is that EPC pages are a
    different resource than memory, hence choose a better suiting name
    than OOM (out of memory) condition,
    - killing -- (unless you have an intention to implement process
    termination later) My current interpretation that it is rather some
    aggressive unmapping within address space, so less confusing name for
    that would be "reclaim".


    > I think EPC pages to VMs could have the same behavior, once they are given
    > to a guest, never taken back by the host. For enclaves on host side, pages
    > are reclaimable, that allows us to enforce in a similar way to memcg.

    Is this distinction between preemptability of EPC pages mandated by the
    HW implementation? (host/"process" enclaves vs VM enclaves) Or do have
    users an option to lock certain pages in memory that yields this
    difference?

    Regards,
    Michal
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-10-17 20:55    [W:4.030 / U:0.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site