Re: [edk2-devel] Is there any use case of FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf now?

["Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>]

It looks like a good topic to discuss in TianoCore Open Design meeting😊

Question to Dandan's proposal: Does it cause any conflict (or help) when standalone mm is launched from PEI?

Thanks,
Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kun Qin
> Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 6:49 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Bi, Dandan <dandan.bi@intel.com>; kun.q@outlook.com
> Cc: Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu@intel.com>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Yao,
> Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; 'Sean Brogan' <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Is there any use case of FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf now?
> 
> Hi Dandan,
> 
> Thanks for letting me know. I added Bret and Sean to the thread for
> broader view in our scope.
> 
> But currently our StandaloneMm Core does not report performance data to
> FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm module.
> 
> Is the idea to centralize the performance report collection job to
> SmmCorePerformanceLib and remove the FirmwarePerformance**Mm driver? Is
> there any plan to support a Standalone instance once the traditional MM
> version is functional?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kun
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2021 04:44, Dandan Bi wrote:
> > Hi Kun,
> >
> > I plan to make some change for FirmwarePerformanceSmm.inf, may also
> > update the behavior of FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf as they are
> > sharing codes now.
> >
> > And I saw you are the submitter of this driver. Could you help clarify
> > following questions ? Thanks in advance.
> >
> >  1. Do you have the use case to leverage
> >     FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf to collect Standalone MM
> >     performance data now?
> >  2. Do you have any Library/module used by StandaloneMmCore to collect
> >     Standalone MM performance data and report the data to
> >     FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm like the SmmCorePerformanceLib used
> >     for SMM core?
> >  3. I plan to move some logic from FirmwarePerformanceDataTableSmm to
> >     SmmCorePerformanceLib as below. Do you think is it ok just to remove
> >     them from FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf now?
> >
> > If there is not any module to report Standalone MM performance data to
> > FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf, I think it should be OK to remove
> > them from FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm now.
> >
> > Change:
> >
> > SMM performance data collection now:
> >
> >  1. SmmCorePerformanceLib collect all the performance data in SMM and
> >     report the data to FirmwarePerformanceDataTableSmm through status
> >     code. **
> >  2. DxeCorePerformanceLib will communicate with
> >     FirmwarePerformanceDataTableSmm to get the SMM performance data and
> >     allocate performance table to store all the performance data.
> >
> > Now I want to simplify the process to make DxeCorePerformanceLib
> > communicate with SmmCorePerformanceLib directly to collect SMM
> > performance data, so FirmwarePerformanceDataTableSmm don’t need to get
> > the SMM performance data from SmmCorePerformanceLib and register SMI
> > handler for the communication with DxeCorePerformanceLib.
> >
> > For FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf, just remove this logic if there
> > is no module to prepare MM performance data to it now.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dandan
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>