Re: [PATCH v3 03/28] x86/sgx: Add 'struct sgx_epc_lru_lists' to encapsulate lru list(s)

Haitao Huang
2023-07-31T20:35:45Z

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:31:58 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:

...
>> > Although briefly mentioned in the first patch, it would be better to
>> put
>> > more
>> > background about the "reclaimable" and "non-reclaimable" thing here,
>> > focusing on
>> > _why_ we need multiple LRUs (presumably you mean two lists:
>> reclaimable
>> > and non-
>> > reclaimable).
>> >
>> Sure I can add a little more background to introduce the
>> reclaimable/unreclaimable concept. But why we need multiple LRUs would
>> be
>> self-evident in later patches, not sure I will add details here.
>
> In this case people will need to go to that patch to get some idea
> first. It
> doesn't seem hurt if you can explain why you need multiple LRUs here
> first.
>
Will add.

...
>
> I didn't get the CHECK in my testing. Not sure why.
>
> Anyway, I guess the comment can be useful if it is to explain why we
> need to use
> spinlock or whatever lock. But
>
> /* Must acquire this lock to access */
>
> doesn't explain why at all, thus doesn't look helpful to me.
>
> I guess you either need a better comment, or just remove it (it's
> obvious that a
> lot of kernel code doesn't have a comment around spinlock_t).
>

I'll remove the comments.
Thanks
Haitao