Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/sgx: Add SGX_MemTotal to /proc/meminfo

[Kai Huang]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 05:02:45 +0300 Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-08-28 at 00:03 +1200, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > > > -/* The free page list lock protected variables prepend the lock. */
> > > > > +/* The number of usable EPC pages in the system. */
> > > > > +unsigned long sgx_nr_all_pages;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* The number of free EPC pages in all nodes. */
> > > > >  static unsigned long sgx_nr_free_pages;
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /* Nodes with one or more EPC sections. */
> > > > > @@ -656,6 +659,8 @@ static bool __init sgx_setup_epc_section(u64 phys_addr, u64 size,
> > > > >  		list_add_tail(&section->pages[i].list, &sgx_dirty_page_list);
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >  
> > > > > +	sgx_nr_all_pages += nr_pages;
> > > > > +
> > > > 
> > > > EPC sections can be freed again in sgx_init() after they are successfully
> > > > initialized, when any further initialization fails (i.e. when fails to create
> > > > ksgxd, or fails to register /dev/sgx_provision).  In which case, I think
> > > > sgx_nr_all_pages should also be cleared.  But current sgx_init() seems doesn't
> > > > reset it.  Do you need to fix that too?
> > > 
> > > sgx_nr_all_pages tells just the total pages in the system, i.e. it's a constant.
> > > 
> > > Maybe a rename to "sgx_nr_total_pages" would be a good idea? Would match with
> > > the meminfo field better too.
> > 
> > I don't have preference on name.  I just think if there's no actual user of
> > EPC (when both driver and KVM SGX cannot be enabled), it's pointless to print
> > number of EPC pages.
> 
> I'd presume that you refer to the code, which prints the number of *bytes* in
> the system because code printing the number of pages does not exist in this
> patch set.
> 
> I have troubles the decipher your statement.
> 
> You think that only if both the driver and KVM are *both* enabled, only then
> it makes sense to have this information available for sysadmin?

Only if at least one of them is enabled.

> 
> I don't get this logic, if I understood what you mean in the first place.
>