From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>, devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Avoid copy twice.
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:08:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7572eb62-0ba3-904c-8fc8-d3c074472c75@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190731080102.7292-1-eric.dong@intel.com>
On 07/31/19 10:01, Eric Dong wrote:
> REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1982
>
> MpInitLibInitialize in MpLib.c will be invoked on both PEI and DXE
> CPU code, MicrocodeDetect would be performed twice and copy
> Microcode from flash to memory twice as well, which consider as
> duplicate work to lead longer boot time.
> This patch just use microcode memory copied in PEI phase if exist.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> ---
> UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c | 62 +++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
> index 572495ec36..a1ad665564 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
> @@ -1607,38 +1607,42 @@ MpInitLibInitialize (
> CpuMpData->SwitchBspFlag = FALSE;
> CpuMpData->CpuData = (CPU_AP_DATA *) (CpuMpData + 1);
> CpuMpData->CpuInfoInHob = (UINT64) (UINTN) (CpuMpData->CpuData + MaxLogicalProcessorNumber);
> - CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize = PcdGet64 (PcdCpuMicrocodePatchRegionSize);
> - //
> - // If platform has more than one CPU, relocate microcode to memory to reduce
> - // loading microcode time.
> - //
> - MicrocodePatchInRam = NULL;
> - if (MaxLogicalProcessorNumber > 1) {
> - MicrocodePatchInRam = AllocatePages (
> - EFI_SIZE_TO_PAGES (
> - (UINTN)CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize
> - )
> - );
> - }
> - if (MicrocodePatchInRam == NULL) {
> - //
> - // there is only one processor, or no microcode patch is available, or
> - // memory allocation failed
> - //
> - CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchAddress = PcdGet64 (PcdCpuMicrocodePatchAddress);
> - } else {
> + if (OldCpuMpData == NULL) {
> + CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize = PcdGet64 (PcdCpuMicrocodePatchRegionSize);
> //
> - // there are multiple processors, and a microcode patch is available, and
> - // memory allocation succeeded
> + // If platform has more than one CPU, relocate microcode to memory to reduce
> + // loading microcode time.
> //
> - CopyMem (
> - MicrocodePatchInRam,
> - (VOID *)(UINTN)PcdGet64 (PcdCpuMicrocodePatchAddress),
> - (UINTN)CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize
> - );
> - CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchAddress = (UINTN)MicrocodePatchInRam;
> + MicrocodePatchInRam = NULL;
> + if (MaxLogicalProcessorNumber > 1) {
> + MicrocodePatchInRam = AllocatePages (
> + EFI_SIZE_TO_PAGES (
> + (UINTN)CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize
> + )
> + );
> + }
> + if (MicrocodePatchInRam == NULL) {
> + //
> + // there is only one processor, or no microcode patch is available, or
> + // memory allocation failed
> + //
> + CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchAddress = PcdGet64 (PcdCpuMicrocodePatchAddress);
> + } else {
> + //
> + // there are multiple processors, and a microcode patch is available, and
> + // memory allocation succeeded
> + //
> + CopyMem (
> + MicrocodePatchInRam,
> + (VOID *)(UINTN)PcdGet64 (PcdCpuMicrocodePatchAddress),
> + (UINTN)CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize
> + );
> + CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchAddress = (UINTN)MicrocodePatchInRam;
> + }
> + }else {
> + CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize = OldCpuMpData->MicrocodePatchRegionSize;
> + CpuMpData->MicrocodePatchAddress = OldCpuMpData->MicrocodePatchAddress;
> }
> -
> InitializeSpinLock(&CpuMpData->MpLock);
>
> //
>
I applied this patch locally and reviewed it with:
git show -b -W
The change looks reasonable to me.
(1) Please clarify the subject line a bit. My suggestion is:
UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: don't shadow the microcode patch twice
(this is 58 characters). Feel free to tweak this further if you wish;
the point is that "copy" is too generic in itself.
With (1) fixed:
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Thanks
Laszlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-31 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-31 8:01 [Patch] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Avoid copy twice Dong, Eric
2019-07-31 15:08 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2019-08-01 7:17 ` Ni, Ray
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-list 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=7572eb62-0ba3-904c-8fc8-d3c074472c75@redhat.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/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