From: "Wu, Hao A" <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
"brian.johnson@hpe.com" <brian.johnson@hpe.com>,
"Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>,
"rfc@edk2.groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: "Dong, Eric" <eric.dong@intel.com>,
"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
"Zeng, Star" <star.zeng@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][PATCH v1] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib DXE: Reduce AP status check interval
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 00:32:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B80AF82E9BFB8E4FBD8C89DA810C6A093C9C0B08@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ebcd2e2-22bb-ce6d-ac94-cd6cf26c0462@hpe.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian
> J. Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 12:39 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray; Laszlo Ersek; Wu, Hao A;
> rfc@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Dong, Eric; Kinney, Michael D; Zeng, Star
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][PATCH v1] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib DXE: Reduce
> AP status check interval
>
> On 3/23/20 9:37 AM, Ni, Ray wrote:
> >>> Laszlo,
> >>> Adding a PCD means platform integrators need to consider which value to
> set.
> >>> Most of the time, they may just use the default PCD value.
> >>> Then, why not we add the PCD later when a real case is met?
> >>
> >> The patch changes existent behavior; it is not for a newly introduced
> >> feature.
> >>
> >> Because most platforms are not in the edk2 tree, we don't know what
> >> platforms could be regressed by increasing the polling frequency
> >> tenfold. (And remember that the polling action has O(n) cost, where "n"
> >> is the logical processor count.)
> >>
> >> Under your suggestion, the expression "real case is met" amounts to
> >> "someone reports a regression" (possibly after the next stable tag,
> >> even). I don't think that's a good idea.
> >> In particular, the patch is motivated by RegisterCpuFeaturesLib -- the
> >> CpuFeaturesInitialize() function -- on some platform(s) that Hao uses.
> >> But there are platforms that don't use RegisterCpuFeaturesLib, and still
> >> use MpInitLib.
> >
> > OK. I agree with your suggestion.
>
> Thank you. I agree with Laszlo: MP initialization is tricky to scale,
> and platform dependent. My group builds real machines with thousands of
> APs, and we have had to do various tweaks to the MP init. code. Having
> a PCD to adjust this timeout will be very useful.
Thanks all for the feedbacks. Please grant me some time to prepare a new
version of the patch.
Best Regards,
Hao Wu
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Brian J. Johnson
> Enterprise X86 Lab
>
> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
> brian.johnson@hpe.com
>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-24 0:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-13 13:22 [RFC][PATCH v1] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib DXE: Reduce AP status check interval Wu, Hao A
2020-03-13 19:17 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-03-16 1:37 ` [edk2-devel] " Ni, Ray
2020-03-23 12:00 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-03-23 14:37 ` Ni, Ray
2020-03-23 16:38 ` Brian J. Johnson
2020-03-24 0:32 ` Wu, Hao A [this message]
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=B80AF82E9BFB8E4FBD8C89DA810C6A093C9C0B08@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.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