From: "Pedro Falcato" <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, lersek@redhat.com
Cc: Zhou Jianfeng <jianfeng.zhou@intel.com>,
Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>, Rahul Kumar <rahul1.kumar@intel.com>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg: add volatile qualifier to page table related variable
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:44:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKbZUD1iShCP105J26YGLXpmOC=N_Ps0pnsHkQz==mMeeJ0haw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6bf89071-0514-cb97-f639-6bece14cc6d7@redhat.com>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 8:36 PM Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/24 02:25, Zhou Jianfeng wrote:
> > Add volatile qualifier to page table related variable to prevent
> > compiler from optimizing away the variables which may lead to
> > unexpected result.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhou Jianfeng <jianfeng.zhou@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> > Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Rahul Kumar <rahul1.kumar@intel.com>
> > Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
I'd appreciate getting CC'd on my own suggestion....
> > ---
> > UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuPageTableLib/CpuPageTableMap.c | 12 ++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> (1) subject should be something like:
>
> UefiCpuPkg/CpuPageTableLib: qualify page table accesses as volatile
>
> >
> > diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuPageTableLib/CpuPageTableMap.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuPageTableLib/CpuPageTableMap.c
> > index 2ea40666cc..5cf6e8fea0 100644
> > --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuPageTableLib/CpuPageTableMap.c
> > +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuPageTableLib/CpuPageTableMap.c
> > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ PageTableLibSetPte4K (
> > IN IA32_MAP_ATTRIBUTE *Mask
> > )
> > {
> > - IA32_PTE_4K LocalPte4K;
> > + volatile IA32_PTE_4K LocalPte4K;
> >
> > LocalPte4K.Uint64 = Pte4K->Uint64;
> > if (Mask->Bits.PageTableBaseAddressLow || Mask->Bits.PageTableBaseAddressHigh) {
> > @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ PageTableLibSetPte4K (
> > }
> >
> > if (Pte4K->Uint64 != LocalPte4K.Uint64) {
> > - Pte4K->Uint64 = LocalPte4K.Uint64;
> > + *(volatile UINT64 *)&(Pte4K->Uint64) = LocalPte4K.Uint64;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ PageTableLibSetPleB (
> > IN IA32_MAP_ATTRIBUTE *Mask
> > )
> > {
> > - IA32_PAGE_LEAF_ENTRY_BIG_PAGESIZE LocalPleB;
> > + volatile IA32_PAGE_LEAF_ENTRY_BIG_PAGESIZE LocalPleB;
> >
> > LocalPleB.Uint64 = PleB->Uint64;
> > if (Mask->Bits.PageTableBaseAddressLow || Mask->Bits.PageTableBaseAddressHigh) {
> > @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ PageTableLibSetPleB (
> > }
> >
> > if (PleB->Uint64 != LocalPleB.Uint64) {
> > - PleB->Uint64 = LocalPleB.Uint64;
> > + *(volatile UINT64 *)&(PleB->Uint64) = LocalPleB.Uint64;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ PageTableLibSetPnle (
> > IN IA32_MAP_ATTRIBUTE *Mask
> > )
> > {
> > - IA32_PAGE_NON_LEAF_ENTRY LocalPnle;
> > + volatile IA32_PAGE_NON_LEAF_ENTRY LocalPnle;
> >
> > LocalPnle.Uint64 = Pnle->Uint64;
> > if (Mask->Bits.Present) {
> > @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ PageTableLibSetPnle (
> > LocalPnle.Bits.WriteThrough = 0;
> > LocalPnle.Bits.CacheDisabled = 0;
> > if (Pnle->Uint64 != LocalPnle.Uint64) {
> > - Pnle->Uint64 = LocalPnle.Uint64;
> > + *(volatile UINT64 *)&(Pnle->Uint64) = LocalPnle.Uint64;
> > }
> > }
>
> I agree with the idea (I think it's a necessary change, or put
> differently, an improvement, even though I may not be convinced that it
> is a *sufficient* improvement; but let's not rehash all that here
> again); however, I think the implementation is not the greatest.
>
> Volatile-qualifying the local variables does not seem useful for
> anything. It's fine -- actually: it's beneficial -- if the compiler
> optimizes accesses to those locals -- being on the stack -- as heavily
> as it can. In other words, those parts of the patch look like a small
> performance regression.
>
> (2) What we want to qualify as volatile here are the *targets* of the
> Pte4K, PleB and Pnle pointers. Your other patch ("UefiCpuPkg: Fix IN OUT
> parameters marked as IN") correctly marks those as "IN OUT", so in this
> patch, we should update them to:
>
> IN OUT volatile IA32_PAGE_NON_LEAF_ENTRY *Pnle
>
> and similar. Then the existent assignment expressions
>
> Pnle->Uint64 = LocalPnle.Uint64;
>
> don't have to be changed.
I echo these comments :)
>
> Note that call sites will not have to be updated either; see C99 6.3.2.3
> Pointers, paragraph 2:
>
> For any qualifier q, a pointer to a non-q-qualified type may be
> converted to a pointer to the q-qualified version of the type; the
> values stored in the original and converted pointers shall compare
> equal.
Ugh, honestly converting to volatile implicitly is kind-of yucky, but
I guess it works; personally I'd rather have explicit conversion, but
it's just a matter of taste.
What I *really* prefer in these cases (when we're not dealing with
MMIO) is something like READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE, where the
"volatility points" are very well annotated, but oh well :)
--
Pedro
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#115743): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/115743
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104483610/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-21 21:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-21 1:25 [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg: add volatile qualifier to page table related variable Zhou Jianfeng
2024-02-21 5:47 ` Ni, Ray
2024-02-21 20:36 ` Laszlo Ersek
2024-02-21 21:44 ` Pedro Falcato [this message]
2024-02-22 3:01 ` Zhou, Jianfeng
2024-02-22 10:23 ` Ni, Ray
2024-02-25 13:17 ` Laszlo Ersek
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='CAKbZUD1iShCP105J26YGLXpmOC=N_Ps0pnsHkQz==mMeeJ0haw@mail.gmail.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