From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail.byosoft.com.cn (mail.byosoft.com.cn [58.240.74.242])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.10967.1603788324233273050
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Tue, 27 Oct 2020 01:45:25 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=none, err=permanent DNS error (domain: byosoft.com.cn, ip: 58.240.74.242, mailfrom: gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn)
Received: from DESKTOPS6D0PVI ([58.246.60.130])
	(envelope-sender <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>)
	by 192.168.6.13 with ESMTP
	for <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:45:12 +0800
X-WM-Sender: gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn
X-WM-AuthFlag: YES
X-WM-AuthUser: gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn
From: "gaoliming" <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>
To: "'Ard Biesheuvel'" <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>,
	"'Laszlo Ersek'" <lersek@redhat.com>,
	<devel@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: "'Dandan Bi'" <dandan.bi@intel.com>,
	"'Jian J Wang'" <jian.j.wang@intel.com>,
	"'Hao A Wu'" <hao.a.wu@intel.com>,
	"'Sami Mujawar'" <sami.mujawar@arm.com>,
	"'Leif Lindholm'" <leif@nuviainc.com>
References: <20201016154923.21260-1-ard.biesheuvel@arm.com> <20201016154923.21260-2-ard.biesheuvel@arm.com> <f2c208c0-7680-c789-3ccd-d298b3963d3a@redhat.com> <009401d6a817$53da54e0$fb8efea0$@byosoft.com.cn> <bededbf0-a4e1-5f20-671b-c558897e897e@arm.com> <003401d6ab38$411f31d0$c35d9570$@byosoft.com.cn> <b58d3b6b-40ff-1d0d-a15b-17acb898f0ba@redhat.com> <756ec3e7-a1df-8251-f284-07b7aa45ef7f@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <756ec3e7-a1df-8251-f284-07b7aa45ef7f@arm.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?5Zue5aSNOiDlm57lpI06IOWbnuWkjTogW2VkazItZGV2ZWxdIFtQQVRDSCAxLzNdIE1kZU1vZHVsZVBrZy9BY3BpVGFibGVEeGU6IHVzZSBwb29sIGFsbG9jYXRpb25zIHdoZW4gcG9zc2libGU=?=
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:45:19 +0800
Message-ID: <004001d6ac3d$80117aa0$80346fe0$@byosoft.com.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQG1P16Qtp8rtrRUOGS/yc4Px7RstgGV4cMRAVTJxfMC44WBzgL3Na87AMJ0PW4Bo8bAnwKHeiotqYBZcNA=
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: zh-cn

Ard:
  After removes BIT1 from =
gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdAcpiExposedTableVersions for OVMFX64, =
the memory ACPI_Recl will be reduced with this patch set.=20

  I also review the code logic. I don't find other issue. I see Laszlo =
gives one comment on CurrentTableList. It is from AllocatePool(). If so, =
CurrentTableList->PoolAllocation value should be set to FALSE.=20

Thanks
Liming
> -----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6-----
> =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
> =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: =
2020=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8826=E6=97=A5 15:43
> =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; =
gaoliming
> <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; devel@edk2.groups.io
> =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: 'Dandan Bi' <dandan.bi@intel.com>; 'Jian J Wang'
> <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; 'Hao A Wu' <hao.a.wu@intel.com>; 'Sami =
Mujawar'
> <sami.mujawar@arm.com>; 'Leif Lindholm' <leif@nuviainc.com>
> =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: =E5=9B=9E=E5=A4=8D: =E5=9B=9E=E5=A4=8D: =
[edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/3]
> MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: use pool allocations when possible
>=20
> On 10/26/20 7:25 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 10/26/20 02:35, gaoliming wrote:
> >> Ard:
> >>    I verify this patch on OvmfX64 and collect the memmap info. I =
don't
> see the difference in memmap.
> >>    So, this enhancement is for AARCH64 only. Is it right?
> >
> > That's my understanding, yes. OVMF enables ACPI 1.0b support in the
> > bitmask PCD, and so the compat code for 32-bit allocations (=3D page
> > allocations for expressing the 4GB limit) remains active.
> >
>=20
> Indeed. Any platform that removes BIT1 from
>=20
> gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdAcpiExposedTableVersions
>=20
> will switch over to pool allocations, but OVMF retains support for =
ACPI
> 1.0b for some reason.