Re: [PATCH v5 13/18] x86/sgx: Expose sgx_reclaim_pages() for use by EPC cgroup

["Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 20:06 -0700, Haitao Huang wrote:
> From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> 
> Adjust and expose the top-level reclaim function as
> sgx_reclaim_epc_pages() for use by the upcoming EPC cgroup, which will
> initiate reclaim to enforce the max limit.
> 
> Make these adjustments to the function signature.
> 
> 1) To take a parameter that specifies the number of pages to scan for
> reclaiming. Define a max value of 32, but scan 16 in the case for the
> global reclaimer (ksgxd). The EPC cgroup will use it to specify a
> desired number of pages to be reclaimed up to the max value of 32.
> 
> 2) To take a flag to force reclaiming a page regardless of its age.  The
> EPC cgroup will use the flag to enforce its limits by draining the
> reclaimable lists before resorting to other measures, e.g. forcefully
> kill enclaves.
> 
> 3) Return the number of reclaimed pages. The EPC cgroup will use the
> result to track reclaiming progress and escalate to a more forceful
> reclaiming mode, e.g., calling this function with the flag to ignore age
> of pages.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> Co-developed-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com>
> Co-developed-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> ---
> V4:
> - Combined the 3 patches that made the individual changes to the
> function signature.
> - Removed 'high' limit in commit message.
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h  |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> index 3b875ab4dcd0..4e1a3e038db5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@
>  #include "encl.h"
>  #include "encls.h"
>  
> +/*
> + * Maximum number of pages to scan for reclaiming.
> + */
> +#define SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX	32
> +
>  struct sgx_epc_section sgx_epc_sections[SGX_MAX_EPC_SECTIONS];
>  static int sgx_nr_epc_sections;
>  static struct task_struct *ksgxd_tsk;
> @@ -279,7 +284,11 @@ static void sgx_reclaimer_write(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page,
>  	mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
>  }
>  
> -/*
> +/**
> + * sgx_reclaim_epc_pages() - Reclaim EPC pages from the consumers
> + * @nr_to_scan:		 Number of EPC pages to scan for reclaim
> + * @ignore_age:		 Reclaim a page even if it is young
> + *
>   * Take a fixed number of pages from the head of the active page pool and
>   * reclaim them to the enclave's private shmem files. Skip the pages, which have
>   * been accessed since the last scan. Move those pages to the tail of active
> @@ -292,15 +301,14 @@ static void sgx_reclaimer_write(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page,
>   * problematic as it would increase the lock contention too much, which would
>   * halt forward progress.
>   */
> -static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
> +size_t sgx_reclaim_epc_pages(size_t nr_to_scan, bool ignore_age)

'size_t' looks odd.  Any reason to use it?

Given you only scan 32 at maximum, seems 'int' is good enough?

>  {
> -	struct sgx_backing backing[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN];
> +	struct sgx_backing backing[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX];
>  	struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page, *tmp;
>  	struct sgx_encl_page *encl_page;
>  	pgoff_t page_index;
>  	LIST_HEAD(iso);
> -	int ret;
> -	int i;
> +	size_t ret, i;
>  
>  	spin_lock(&sgx_global_lru.lock);
>  	for (i = 0; i < SGX_NR_TO_SCAN; i++) {

The function comment says 

	* @nr_to_scan:		 Number of EPC pages to scan for reclaim

But I don't see it is even used, if my eye isn't deceiving me?
	
> @@ -326,13 +334,14 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
>  	spin_unlock(&sgx_global_lru.lock);
>  
>  	if (list_empty(&iso))
> -		return;
> +		return 0;
>  
>  	i = 0;
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(epc_page, tmp, &iso, list) {
>  		encl_page = epc_page->encl_page;
>  
> -		if (!sgx_reclaimer_age(epc_page))
> +		if (i == SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX ||

i == nr_to_scan?

And should we have a

	if (nr_to_scan < SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX)
		return 0;

at the very beginning of this function?

> +		    (!ignore_age && !sgx_reclaimer_age(epc_page)))
>  			goto skip;
>  
>  		page_index = PFN_DOWN(encl_page->desc - encl_page->encl->base);
> @@ -371,6 +380,8 @@ static void sgx_reclaim_pages(void)
>  
>  		sgx_free_epc_page(epc_page);
>  	}
> +
> +	return i;
>  }
>  

I found this function a little bit odd, given the mixing of 'nr_to_scan',
SGX_NR_TO_SCAN and SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX.

From the changelog:

	1) To take a parameter that specifies the number of pages to scan for
	reclaiming. Define a max value of 32, but scan 16 in the case for the
	global reclaimer (ksgxd). 

It appears we want to make this function to scan @nr_to_scan for cgroup, but
still want to scan a fixed value for ksgxd, which is SGX_NR_TO_SCAN.  And
@nr_to_scan can be larger than SGX_NR_TO_SCAN but smaller than
SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX.

Putting behind the mystery of why above is needed, to achieve it, is it more
clear if we do below?

int __sgx_reclaim_epc_pages(int nr_to_scan, bool ignore_age)
{
	struct sgx_backing backing[SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX];
	...

	if (nr_to_scan > SGX_NR_TO_SCAN_MAX)
		return 0;

	for (i = 0; i < nr_to_scan; i++) {
		...
	}

	return reclaimed;
}

/* This is for ksgxd() */
int sgx_reclaim_epc_page(void)
{
	return __sgx_reclaim_epc_pages(SGX_NR_TO_SCAN, false);
}

EPC cgroup calls __sgx_reclaim_epc_pages() directly, or introduce another
wrapper.