Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] x86/sgx: Explicitly give up the CPU in EDMM's ioctl() to avoid softlockup

Hi Dave, Appreciate for your review! > On Apr 27, 2024, at 01:06, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 4/26/24 07:18, Bojun Zhu wrote: >> for (c = 0 ; c < modp->length; c += PAGE_SIZE) { >> +if (sgx_check_signal_and_resched()) { >> +if (!c) >> +

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] x86/sgx: Explicitly give up the CPU in EDMM's ioctl() to avoid softlockup

On Fri Apr 26, 2024 at 5:18 PM EEST, Bojun Zhu wrote: > EDMM's ioctl()s support batch operations, which may be > time-consuming. Try to explicitly give up the CPU as the prefix > operation at the every begin of "for loop" in > sgx_enclave_{ modify_types | restrict_permissions | remove_pages} > to

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] x86/sgx: Explicitly give up the CPU in EDMM's ioctl() to avoid softlockup

On 4/26/24 07:18, Bojun Zhu wrote: > for (c = 0 ; c < modp->length; c += PAGE_SIZE) { > + if (sgx_check_signal_and_resched()) { > + if (!c) > + ret = -ERESTARTSYS; > + > + goto out; > + } This

[RFC PATCH v2 1/1] x86/sgx: Explicitly give up the CPU in EDMM's ioctl() to avoid softlockup

EDMM's ioctl()s support batch operations, which may be time-consuming. Try to explicitly give up the CPU as the prefix operation at the every begin of "for loop" in sgx_enclave_{ modify_types | restrict_permissions | remove_pages} to give other tasks a chance to run, and avoid softlockup warning.