From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org
Cc: haitao.huang@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Add a basic NUMA allocation scheme to sgx_alloc_epc_page()
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:54:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7acc3c1c-373e-cfee-e838-2af170e87d98@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210221020631.171404-1-jarkko@kernel.org>
> +/* Nodes with one or more EPC sections. */
> +static nodemask_t sgx_numa_mask;
I'd also add that this is for optimization only.
> +/* Array of lists of EPC sections for each NUMA node. */
> +struct list_head *sgx_numa_nodes;
I'd much prefer:
/*
* Array with one list_head for each possible NUMA node. Each
* list contains all the sgx_epc_section's which are on that
* node.
*/
Otherwise, it's hard to imagine what this structure looks like.
> /*
> * These variables are part of the state of the reclaimer, and must be accessed
> * with sgx_reclaimer_lock acquired.
> @@ -473,6 +479,26 @@ static struct sgx_epc_page *__sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_section(struct sgx_epc_sec
> return page;
> }
>
> +static struct sgx_epc_page *__sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_node(int nid)
> +{
> + struct sgx_epc_section *section;
> + struct sgx_epc_page *page;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (!node_isset(nid, sgx_numa_mask))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(section, &sgx_numa_nodes[nid], section_list) {
> + page = __sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_section(section);
> + if (page)
> + return page;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * __sgx_alloc_epc_page() - Allocate an EPC page
> *
> @@ -485,13 +511,17 @@ static struct sgx_epc_page *__sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_section(struct sgx_epc_sec
> */
> struct sgx_epc_page *__sgx_alloc_epc_page(void)
> {
> + int current_nid = numa_node_id();
> struct sgx_epc_section *section;
> struct sgx_epc_page *page;
> int i;
>
> + page = __sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_node(current_nid);
> + if (page)
> + return page;
Comments, please.
/* Try to allocate EPC from the current node, first: */
then:
/* Search all EPC sections, ignoring locality: */
> for (i = 0; i < sgx_nr_epc_sections; i++) {
> section = &sgx_epc_sections[i];
> -
> page = __sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_section(section);
> if (page)
> return page;
This still has the problem that it exerts too much pressure on the
low-numbered sgx_epc_sections[]. If a node's sections are full, it
always tries to go after sgx_epc_sections[0].
It can be in another patch, but I think the *minimal* thing we can do
here for a NUMA allocator is to try to at least balance the allocations.
Instead of having a for-each-section loop, I'd make it for-each-node ->
for-each-section. Something like:
for (i = 0; i < num_possible_nodes(); i++) {
node = (numa_node_id() + i) % num_possible_nodes()
if (!node_isset(nid, sgx_numa_mask))
continue;
list_for_each_entry(section, &sgx_numa_nodes[nid],
section_list) {
__sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_section(section)
}
}
Then you have a single loop instead of a "try local then a fall back".
Also, that "node++" thing might be able to use next_online_node().
> @@ -665,8 +695,12 @@ static bool __init sgx_page_cache_init(void)
> {
> u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx, type;
> u64 pa, size;
> + int nid;
> int i;
>
> + nodes_clear(sgx_numa_mask);
> + sgx_numa_nodes = kmalloc_array(MAX_NUMNODES, sizeof(*sgx_numa_nodes), GFP_KERNEL);
MAX_NUMNODES will always be the largest compile-time constant. That's
4k, IIRC. num_possible_nodes() might be as small as 1 if NUMA is off.
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sgx_epc_sections); i++) {
> cpuid_count(SGX_CPUID, i + SGX_CPUID_EPC, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
>
> @@ -690,6 +724,22 @@ static bool __init sgx_page_cache_init(void)
> }
>
> sgx_nr_epc_sections++;
> +
> + nid = numa_map_to_online_node(phys_to_target_node(pa));
> +
> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "unable to map EPC section %d to online node.\n", nid);
> + nid = 0;
Could we dump out the physical address there? I think that's even more
informative than a section number.
> + } else if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)) {
> + nid = 0;
> + }
I'm not sure we really need to check for these. If we're worried about
the firmware returning these, I'd expect numa_map_to_online_node() to
sanity check them for us.
> + if (!node_isset(nid, sgx_numa_mask)) {
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sgx_numa_nodes[nid]);
> + node_set(nid, sgx_numa_mask);
> + }
> +
> + list_add_tail(&sgx_epc_sections[i].section_list, &sgx_numa_nodes[nid]);
> }
>
> if (!sgx_nr_epc_sections) {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h
> index 5fa42d143feb..4bc31bc4bacf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/sgx.h
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ struct sgx_epc_section {
> spinlock_t lock;
> struct list_head page_list;
> unsigned long free_cnt;
> + struct list_head section_list;
Maybe name this numa_section_list.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-22 0:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-21 2:06 [PATCH] x86/sgx: Add a basic NUMA allocation scheme to sgx_alloc_epc_page() Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-22 0:54 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2021-02-23 19:14 ` Dave Hansen
2021-02-24 17:29 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-23 19:17 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-23 19:20 ` Dave Hansen
2021-02-23 19:33 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-23 21:42 ` Dave Hansen
2021-02-24 17:31 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7acc3c1c-373e-cfee-e838-2af170e87d98@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=haitao.huang@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).