On Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 11:56 PM EET, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/26/24 13:48, Haitao Huang wrote:
> > In case of overcomitting, i.e., sum of limits greater than the EPC
> > capacity, if one group has a fault, and its usage is not above its own
> > limit (try_charge() passes), yet total usage of the s
Hello.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 03:48:18PM -0600, Haitao Huang
wrote:
> In case of overcomitting, i.e., sum of limits greater than the EPC capacity,
> if one group has a fault, and its usage is not above its own limit
> (try_charge() passes), yet total usage of the system has exceeded the
> capac
On 27/02/2024 11:38 am, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 2/26/24 14:34, Huang, Kai wrote:
So I am trying to get the actual downside of doing per-cgroup reclaim or
the full reason that we choose global reclaim.
Take the most extreme example:
while (hit_global_sgx_limit())
recla
On 27/02/2024 11:31 am, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 2/26/24 14:24, Huang, Kai wrote:
What is the downside of doing per-group reclaim when try_charge()
succeeds for the enclave but failed to allocate EPC page?
Could you give an complete answer why you choose to use global reclaim
for the above case
On 2/26/24 14:34, Huang, Kai wrote:
> So I am trying to get the actual downside of doing per-cgroup reclaim or
> the full reason that we choose global reclaim.
Take the most extreme example:
while (hit_global_sgx_limit())
reclaim_from_this(cgroup);
You eventually end up w
Kai, I think your examples sound a little bit contrived. Have actual
users expressed a strong intent for doing anything with this series
other than limiting bad actors from eating all the EPC?
I am not sure about this. I am also trying to get a full picture.
I asked because I didn't quite
On 2/26/24 14:24, Huang, Kai wrote:
> What is the downside of doing per-group reclaim when try_charge()
> succeeds for the enclave but failed to allocate EPC page?
>
> Could you give an complete answer why you choose to use global reclaim
> for the above case?
There are literally two different li
On 27/02/2024 10:18 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 05:36:02 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
On Sun, 2024-02-25 at 22:03 -0600, Haitao Huang wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:38:26 -0600, Huang, Kai
wrote:
>
>
> On 24/02/2024 6:00 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:18:1
On 2/26/24 13:48, Haitao Huang wrote:
> In case of overcomitting, i.e., sum of limits greater than the EPC
> capacity, if one group has a fault, and its usage is not above its own
> limit (try_charge() passes), yet total usage of the system has exceeded
> the capacity, whether we do global reclaim
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 08:04:54 -0600, Dave Hansen
wrote:
On 2/26/24 03:36, Huang, Kai wrote:
In case of overcomitting, even if we always reclaim from the same
cgroup
for each fault, one group may still interfere the other: e.g.,
consider an
extreme case in that group A used up a
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 05:36:02 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
On Sun, 2024-02-25 at 22:03 -0600, Haitao Huang wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:38:26 -0600, Huang, Kai
wrote:
>
>
> On 24/02/2024 6:00 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:18:18 -0600, Huang, Kai
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > >
>
On 2/26/24 03:36, Huang, Kai wrote:
>> In case of overcomitting, even if we always reclaim from the same cgroup
>> for each fault, one group may still interfere the other: e.g., consider an
>> extreme case in that group A used up almost all EPC at the time group B
>> has a fault, B has to fai
On Sun, 2024-02-25 at 22:03 -0600, Haitao Huang wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:38:26 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 24/02/2024 6:00 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:18:18 -0600, Huang, Kai
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Right. When code reaches to
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:38:26 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
On 24/02/2024 6:00 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:18:18 -0600, Huang, Kai
wrote:
>
Right. When code reaches to here, we already passed reclaim per
cgroup.
Yes if try_charge() failed we must do pre-cgroup reclaim.
On 24/02/2024 6:00 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:18:18 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
>
Right. When code reaches to here, we already passed reclaim per cgroup.
Yes if try_charge() failed we must do pre-cgroup reclaim.
The cgroup may not at or reach limit but system has run ou
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:18:18 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
>
Right. When code reaches to here, we already passed reclaim per cgroup.
Yes if try_charge() failed we must do pre-cgroup reclaim.
The cgroup may not at or reach limit but system has run out of physical
EPC.
But after try_charge() we
> >
> Right. When code reaches to here, we already passed reclaim per cgroup.
Yes if try_charge() failed we must do pre-cgroup reclaim.
> The cgroup may not at or reach limit but system has run out of physical
> EPC.
>
But after try_charge() we can still choose to reclaim from the current
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:26:05 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
On 23/02/2024 6:09 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:06:02 -0600, Huang, Kai
wrote:
-int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg)
+int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg, bool
rec
On 23/02/2024 6:09 am, Haitao Huang wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:06:02 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
-int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg)
+int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg, bool
reclaim)
{
- return misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_SGX_EP
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:06:02 -0600, Huang, Kai wrote:
-int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg)
+int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg, bool
reclaim)
{
- return misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_SGX_EPC, epc_cg->cg, PAGE_SIZE);
+ for (;;)
> -int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg)
> +int sgx_epc_cgroup_try_charge(struct sgx_epc_cgroup *epc_cg, bool reclaim)
> {
> - return misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_SGX_EPC, epc_cg->cg, PAGE_SIZE);
> + for (;;) {
> + if (!misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_S
On Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 3:12 PM UTC, Haitao Huang wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:52:25 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue Feb 13, 2024 at 1:15 AM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
> >> Hi Jarkko
> >>
> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:55:46 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon Feb 5,
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:52:25 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
On Tue Feb 13, 2024 at 1:15 AM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
Hi Jarkko
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:55:46 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
> On Mon Feb 5, 2024 at 11:06 PM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
>> From: Kristen Carlson Accardi
>>
>> When th
On Tue Feb 13, 2024 at 1:15 AM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
> Hi Jarkko
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:55:46 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon Feb 5, 2024 at 11:06 PM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
> >> From: Kristen Carlson Accardi
> >>
> >> When the EPC usage of a cgroup is near its limit, the c
Hi Jarkko
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:55:46 -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
On Mon Feb 5, 2024 at 11:06 PM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
From: Kristen Carlson Accardi
When the EPC usage of a cgroup is near its limit, the cgroup needs to
reclaim pages used in the same cgroup to make room for new allo
On Mon Feb 5, 2024 at 11:06 PM EET, Haitao Huang wrote:
> From: Kristen Carlson Accardi
>
> When the EPC usage of a cgroup is near its limit, the cgroup needs to
> reclaim pages used in the same cgroup to make room for new allocations.
> This is analogous to the behavior that the global reclaimer
26 matches
Mail list logo
