Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:24:19 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        serge.ayoun@intel.com, shay.katz-zamir@intel.com, luto@kernel.org
Subject: Re: sgx_reclaimer_write() refinement
Message-ID: <20190826032419.6664uxf5l2nsggss@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190823190809.n3np4v7hvlj5isku@linux.intel.com>
 <20190823191546.4wmkv3sh75x3czbb@linux.intel.com>
 <20190826032340.6b5l7fls3g34uyq6@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190826032340.6b5l7fls3g34uyq6@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-sgx-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 06:23:40AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:15:46PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:08:09PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > It would greatly reduce the complexity of the flow. Would be much easier
> > > to do fallback code paths. We have three trial EWB approach, which
> > > should prevent already unnecesaary ETRACK's and IPI's.
> > 
> > I recall that I used a cluster ages ago to do minimize ETRACK's and
> > IPI's. I implemented three trial EWB during the Spring 2018 when the
> > reclaimer code was heavily refined but failed to notice that it rendered
> > cluster's meaningless...
> 
> One potential caveat here: EBLOCK's could never sequence before ETRACK
> with a single thread.
> 
> However, the existing code does work in parallel already i.e. there can
> be multiple sgx_alloc_page() calls on different going on. This change

on differen threads

/Jarkko