On 07/11/18 13:31, Dong, Eric wrote:
> Hi Jiewen,
> 
> I checked the code, found in the AP function (ApWakeupFunction), it updated 
> the GDT value with the saved GDT value from BSP. So I think we can't use GDT 
> in this case. Right?
> 
>       //
>       // Sync BSP's Control registers to APs
>       //
>       RestoreVolatileRegisters (&CpuMpData->CpuData[0].VolatileRegisters, 
> FALSE);

Side remark: please remember that this particular chunk of code is
subject to change; due to the reviewed (but not yet committed) patch
from Ray:

  [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Avoid calling PEI services from AP

  20180702060135.264676-1-ruiyu.ni@intel.com">http://mid.mail-archive.com/20180702060135.264676-1-ruiyu.ni@intel.com

Said patch has *not* been committed yet, and *only* because Ray himself
has push rights, but he is currently away. So nobody has picked up the
patch yet.

I suggest that, before we do anything else for MpInitLib, we commit
Ray's patch first.

Eric, do you agree?

If so, can you push the patch, or do you want me to do it? I'm glad to
do it if you prefer.

Thanks,
Laszlo


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yao, Jiewen
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:45 PM
>> To: Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>; Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>;
>> Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>; Fan Jeff <vanjeff_...@hotmail.com>;
>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [edk2] 答复: [Patch] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Optimize get
>> processor number performance.
>>
>> Hi
>> I believe using stack pointer is not a robust way if the stack guard feature 
>> is
>> not enabled. Stack pointer may overflow.
>>
>> Can we use GDT? Each AP has its own GDT.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Yao Jiewen
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Dong, Eric
>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:13 PM
>>> To: Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek
>>> <ler...@redhat.com>; Fan Jeff <vanjeff_...@hotmail.com>;
>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] 答复: [Patch] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Optimize get
>>> processor number performance.
>>>
>>> Hi Laszlo,
>>>
>>> I have created https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1002 to
>>> request to add AsmReadEsp() / AsmReadRsp().
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Dong, Eric
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:04 AM
>>>> To: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>; Fan Jeff
>>>> <vanjeff_...@hotmail.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] 答复: [Patch] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Optimize get
>>>> processor number performance.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Laszlo,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:04 PM
>>>>> To: Fan Jeff <vanjeff_...@hotmail.com>; Dong, Eric
>>>>> <eric.d...@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] 答复: [Patch] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Optimize get
>>>>> processor number performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/04/18 11:39, Fan Jeff wrote:
>>>>>> Eric,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Current implementation does not call GetApicid() many times,
>>>>>> Please
>>>>> correct you commit message. Your fix is to improve the performance
>>>>> against the current implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the original commit message does make sense. Without the
>>>>> patch,
>>>>> GetProcessorNumber() may call GetApicId() up to
>>>>> TotalProcessorNumber times. With the patch, even if we skip the
>>>>> stack range search,
>>>>> GetProcessorNumber() will call GetApicId() just once.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Some more questions below, for the patch:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 发件人: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com>
>>>>>> 发送时间: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 4:37:36 PM
>>>>>> 收件人: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>>>> 抄送: Ruiyu Ni; Jeff Fan; Laszlo Ersek
>>>>>> 主题: [Patch] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Optimize get processor number
>>>>> performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Current function has low performance because it calls GetApicId
>>>>>> many times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New logic first try to base on the stack range used by AP to
>>>>>> find the processor number. If this solution failed, then call
>>>>>> GetApicId once and base on this value to search the processor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu...@intel.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Jeff Fan <vanjeff_...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>>>>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c | 25
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
>>>>>> b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
>>>>>> index eb2765910c..abd65bee1a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
>>>>>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
>>>>>> @@ -418,7 +418,8 @@ ApInitializeSync (  }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  /**
>>>>>> -  Find the current Processor number by APIC ID.
>>>>>> +  First try to find the current Processor number by stack
>>>>>> + address, if it failed, then base on APIC ID.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    @param[in]  CpuMpData         Pointer to PEI CPU MP Data
>>>>>>    @param[out] ProcessorNumber   Return the pocessor number found
>>>>>> @@ -435,16 +436,34 @@ GetProcessorNumber (
>>>>>>    UINTN                   TotalProcessorNumber;
>>>>>>    UINTN                   Index;
>>>>>>    CPU_INFO_IN_HOB         *CpuInfoInHob;
>>>>>> +  UINT32                  CurrentApicId;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +  TotalProcessorNumber = CpuMpData->CpuCount;
>>>>>>    CpuInfoInHob = (CPU_INFO_IN_HOB *) (UINTN) CpuMpData-
>>>>>> CpuInfoInHob;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -  TotalProcessorNumber = CpuMpData->CpuCount;
>>>>>> +  //
>>>>>> +  // First try to base on current stack address to find the AP index.
>>>>>> +  // &TotalProcessorNumber value located in the stack range.
>>>>>> +  //
>>>>>>    for (Index = 0; Index < TotalProcessorNumber; Index ++) {
>>>>>> -    if (CpuInfoInHob[Index].ApicId == GetApicId ()) {
>>>>>> +    if ((CpuInfoInHob[Index].ApTopOfStack > (UINTN)
>>>>> (&TotalProcessorNumber)) &&
>>>>>> +        (CpuInfoInHob[Index].ApTopOfStack -
>>>>>> + CpuMpData->CpuApStackSize < (UINTN) (&TotalProcessorNumber)))
>>>>>> + CpuMpData->{
>>>>>>        *ProcessorNumber = Index;
>>>>>>        return EFI_SUCCESS;
>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) If I understand correctly, ApTopOfStack is the exclusive end
>>>>> (highest
>>>>> address) of the AP stack, so any local variable is supposed to
>>>>> start strictly below it (the stack grows down). This seems to
>>>>> justify the ">" relational operator, in the first subcondition; OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, what guarantees that the TotalProcessorNumber local
>>>>> variable is not located exactly at the (inclusive) base of the AP stack?
>> IOW, why is "<"
>>>>> correct, in the second subcondition, rather than "<="?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Eric]  TotalProcessorNumber is the first local variable in this
>>>> function, also exist other local variables in this function, so I just use 
>>>> "<"
>> here.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) I'm generally unhappy about taking the address of local
>>>>> variables, in order to determine stack location in C language.
>>>>> Instead, I think we should have
>>>>> AsmReadEsp() / AsmReadRsp() functions -- we used to have
>>>>> AsmReadSp() for Itanium. Please see the following sub-thread,
>>>>> where Jordan originally suggested AsmReadEsp() / AsmReadRsp():
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mid.mail-
>>>>> archive.com/151056410867.15809.659701894226687543@jljusten-skl
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mid.mail-
>>>>> archive.com/151059627258.20614.16505766191415005802@jljusten-skl
>>>>>
>>>>> Should I file a Feature Request for BaseLib, about adding
>>>>> AsmReadEsp() / AsmReadRsp()?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not suggesting that we block this patch with that feature
>>>>> request, but perhaps we should block the *next* patch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Eric] Yes, I tries to use the function you suggested but we don't
>>>> find it, so I use local variable here.  I agree with your suggest
>>>> that we should add this API for later usage. I will follow up to add this 
>>>> new
>> API and update this patch to V2.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the present patch, I'll follow up with test results separately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Laszlo
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  //
>>>>>> +  // If can't base on stack to find the AP index, use the APIC ID.
>>>>>> +  //
>>>>>> +  CurrentApicId = GetApicId ();  for (Index = 0; Index <
>>>>>> + TotalProcessorNumber; Index ++) {
>>>>>> +    if (CpuInfoInHob[Index].ApicId == CurrentApicId) {
>>>>>> +      *ProcessorNumber = Index;
>>>>>> +      return EFI_SUCCESS;
>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> +  }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>    return EFI_NOT_FOUND;
>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.15.0.windows.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to