Hi Laszlo,
Thanks for your comments.
Explain the issue first:
In CpuCommonFeaturesLib.inf -> CpuCommonFeaturesLib.c ->
CpuCommonFeaturesLibConstructor() function,
it invokes RegisterCpuFeature() to register CPU feature. Some original source
codes is here.
if (IsCpuFeatureSupported (CPU_FEATURE_AESNI)) {
Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
"AESNI",
AesniGetConfigData,
AesniSupport,
AesniInitialize,
CPU_FEATURE_AESNI,
CPU_FEATURE_END
);
ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
}
if (IsCpuFeatureSupported (CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT)) {
Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
"MWAIT",
NULL,
MonitorMwaitSupport,
MonitorMwaitInitialize,
CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT,
CPU_FEATURE_END
);
ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
}
Then I update them to below.
if (IsCpuFeatureSupported (CPU_FEATURE_AESNI)) {
Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
"AESNI",
AesniGetConfigData,
AesniSupport,
AesniInitialize,
CPU_FEATURE_AESNI,
CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE,
CPU_FEATURE_END
);
ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
}
if (IsCpuFeatureSupported (CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT)) {
Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
"MWAIT",
NULL,
MonitorMwaitSupport,
MonitorMwaitInitialize,
CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT,
CPU_FEATURE_AESNI | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE,
CPU_FEATURE_END
);
ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
}
Original function CheckCpuFeaturesDependency() will enter a dead loop and
prompt nothing when checking and sorting them.
I think a better way is to detect this conflicted logic and give some hints to
user, then assert(false).
For your three comments.
1. How about change to this?
if (BeforeFlag) {
DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Error: Feature %a before condition is invalid!",
CurrentCpuFeature->FeatureName));
} else {
DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Error: Feature %a after condition is invalid!",
CurrentCpuFeature->FeatureName));
}
2. Will update it in V2 patch.
3. How about add a prefix before the name?
RegisterCpuFeaturesLibSortCpuFeatures() will be unique.
Best Regards,
Bell Song
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:44 PM
> To: Song, BinX <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Cc: Dong, Eric <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg: Enhance CPU feature dependency check
>
> On 01/31/18 08:00, Song, BinX wrote:
> > Current CPU feature dependency check will hang on when meet below or
> > similar case:
> > if (IsCpuFeatureSupported (CPU_FEATURE_AESNI)) {
> > Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
> > "AESNI",
> > AesniGetConfigData,
> > AesniSupport,
> > AesniInitialize,
> > CPU_FEATURE_AESNI,
> > CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE,
> > CPU_FEATURE_END
> > );
> > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
> > }
> > if (IsCpuFeatureSupported (CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT)) {
> > Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
> > "MWAIT",
> > NULL,
> > MonitorMwaitSupport,
> > MonitorMwaitInitialize,
> > CPU_FEATURE_MWAIT,
> > CPU_FEATURE_AESNI | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE,
> > CPU_FEATURE_END
> > );
> > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
> > }
> >
> > Solution is to separate current CPU feature dependency check into
> > sort and check two parts.
> >
> > Sort function:
> > According to CPU feature's dependency, sort all CPU features.
> > Later dependency will override previous dependency if they are conflicted.
> >
> > Check function:
> > Check sorted CPU features' relationship, ASSERT invalid relationship.
> >
> > Cc: Eric Dong <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]>
> > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> > Signed-off-by: Bell Song <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/CpuFeaturesInitialize.c | 271
> ++++++++++++++++++++-
> > .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeatures.h | 7 +
> > .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 130 +---------
> > 3 files changed, 278 insertions(+), 130 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git
> a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/CpuFeaturesInitialize.c
> b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/CpuFeaturesInitialize.c
> > index 4d75c07..2fd0d5f 100644
> > --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/CpuFeaturesInitialize.c
> > +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/CpuFeaturesInitialize.c
> > @@ -423,6 +423,271 @@ DumpRegisterTableOnProcessor (
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > + From FeatureBitMask, find the right feature entry in CPU feature list.
> > +
> > + @param[in] FeatureList The pointer to CPU feature list.
> > + @param[in] CurrentFeature The pointer to current CPU feature.
> > + @param[in] BeforeFlag TRUE: BeforeFeatureBitMask; FALSE:
> AfterFeatureBitMask.
> > +
> > + @return The pointer to right CPU feature entry.
> > +**/
> > +LIST_ENTRY *
> > +FindFeatureInList(
> > + IN LIST_ENTRY *CpuFeatureList,
> > + IN CPU_FEATURES_ENTRY *CurrentCpuFeature,
> > + IN BOOLEAN BeforeFlag
> > + )
> > +{
> > + LIST_ENTRY *TempEntry;
> > + CPU_FEATURES_ENTRY *TempFeature;
> > + UINT8 *FeatureBitMask;
> > +
> > + FeatureBitMask = BeforeFlag ? CurrentCpuFeature-
> >BeforeFeatureBitMask : CurrentCpuFeature->AfterFeatureBitMask;
> > + TempEntry = GetFirstNode (CpuFeatureList);
> > + while (!IsNull (CpuFeatureList, TempEntry)) {
> > + TempFeature = CPU_FEATURE_ENTRY_FROM_LINK (TempEntry);
> > + if (IsBitMaskMatchCheck (FeatureBitMask, TempFeature-
> >FeatureMask)){
> > + return TempEntry;
> > + }
> > + TempEntry = TempEntry->ForwardLink;
> > + }
> > +
> > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Error: Feature %a ", CurrentCpuFeature-
> >FeatureName, BeforeFlag ? "before ":"after ", "condition is invalid!\n"));
>
> Hi, I skimmed this patch quickly -- I can tell that I can't really tell
> what's going on. I don't know how the feature dependencies are defined
> in the first place, and what the bug is.
>
> However, I do see that the above DEBUG macro invocation is incorrect.
> The format string has one (1) %a conversion specification, but we pass
> three (3) arguments.
>
> I think the last argument ("condition is invalid!\n") should actually be
> part of the format string. And then, the "before"/"after" string has to
> be printed somehow as well.
>
> Another superficial observation below:
>
> > +/**
> > + Check sorted CPU features' relationship, ASSERT invalid one.
> > +
> > + @param[in] FeatureList The pointer to CPU feature list.
> > +**/
> > +VOID
> > +CheckCpuFeaturesRelationShip (
>
> I don't think we should capitalize "Ship" in this identifier.
>
> Third comment: there are several ways to define "sorting", so I'm not
> sure my question applies, but: can we replace the manual sorting with
> SortLib?
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
