From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f51.google.com (mail-pj1-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.892.1628203722401131625 for ; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:48:42 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=vVay7O3E; spf=pass (domain: gmail.com, ip: 209.85.216.51, mailfrom: kuqin12@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pj1-f51.google.com with SMTP id j1so12563994pjv.3 for ; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:48:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rpyowQ5s6p8OaM7orbg7eXQoSqoTseFx6kyL0EQng9g=; b=vVay7O3ECshX34qyjVYlEyscaRwMfF9aa8fdyvOa3dSZEDfeKLqgbqgIEV9ZhdP7iO F4JDBHBnSpBvsodORokoZJdA4g3jXUVXa8V74+vKovustSSEagptBwtqvzUvjfEMWT9w p+/V5yP4V12YQPOUSdwqRVyHJOuGUvH9Iag6Mw1NGzmGa1+U4OgsQPUS4VhMUiDSKzYU 25FyXdNrju++f158ZMrA8+PQZL/AtePsauWjtomlH9NuzvDGr8OypGtfo96SZq1Gv0sj bj5yhi3gyYX/N+frT6HtuXkeONeVjoeqfIlgSVuzj5bY0ALxiHa1K9bSqYujNqqffe/W GXPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rpyowQ5s6p8OaM7orbg7eXQoSqoTseFx6kyL0EQng9g=; b=JcJLG/f9+/rQLo6sHP4TZoRWZu5/n2V2wq8KInXpktzWbzBOSMmEcHZXLFFA8FJLoI uwyD/eWo0kyBLij97W1L4t3bSBHnq1Upyw5eY668Bd1QGzKuISjOGk+5gtrkgtYPkVRx XeQ6Df0n5Rf75Qlcl5AxBkzqjNLb+2s8hSU5/oQuWWl/G3KLwFNkIwxKUs8R09lrzQyq +JD35wEJ0dG8FZ9Ip0toO9+xhADBXd3f81N1X23h3DWqkmhaGXCeJjXlINEoznsGuJdv f1guGtVBv4ZTv7uBzj0qdxQ7uXPq3MtxZUSuaACqrD6k5C4WQF4XZr3F2prPhx5YF9WT uFMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LoldxpktG7T9yR0/R708q4AGqBSVkdNWrG8VmLCfAQZ3sx5ip CXTwIpTplNMNLezf/BRropQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxxfRmquoNpzTIEVI5bBmLAEQ3f54GUpQjbEtB6aFTRxRW+YydfvtAsdDa+akAhC08RytcdA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:9c5:: with SMTP id 188mr1033679pgj.187.1628203721982; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.50.18] ([50.35.88.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m18sm7026508pjq.32.2021.08.05.15.48.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Is there any use case of FirmwarePerformanceStandaloneMm.inf now? To: devel@edk2.groups.io, dandan.bi@intel.com, "kun.q@outlook.com" Cc: "Wu, Hao A" , "Wang, Jian J" , gaoliming , "Yao, Jiewen" , Bret Barkelew , 'Sean Brogan' References: From: "Kun Qin" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 15:48:40 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > >