[edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFC] [PATCH 0/2] Proposal to add EFI_MP_SERVICES_PROTOCOL support for AARCH64

[Leif Lindholm]

Hi Samer,

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 14:20:17 +0000, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
> > In PI, the only references I find to the protocol are in MM and SAL protocols.
> > And we're not even looking at EFI_MP_SERVICES_PPI at this point.
> 
> The PI 1.7 spec defined the EFI_MP_SERVICES_PROTOCOL in page 2-180,
> with the PPI and MM versions in 1-193 and 4-57 respectively.

Yes, I was referring to references, as in any protocols explicitly
stating compatibility with being called from an AP.

> > But it might be good to hear something from ARM whether the use of this
> > protocol which "must be produced on any system with more than one logical processor"
> > *should* be able to rely on anything being set up for it, or whether we
> > need an aforementioned helper library.
> 
> This statement (from the PI spec) is overly ambitious. I bet that it
> does not hold true today on most DXE-based UEFI implementations on
> other architectures, not just AARCH64. If we agree, I will file an
> ECR to remove this statement from the PI spec.

That feels like a weird response to the submission of a patch set
adding the functionality for AArch64.

> 
> From AARCH64 SBBR systems point of view:
> 
>   *   The requirements from Arm SBBR point of view are around using
>       PSCI to online/offline Secondary cores, and leaving them
>       offlined before ReadyToBoot is signaled.

SBBR is not relevant here. PI covers firmware internals, not OS
boot compatibility.

>   *   PI-based UEFI implementations are not required. And even when
>       they are implemented, the EFI_MP_SERVICES_PROTOCOL is not
>       required

So ARM's strategy is to encourage people not to us it *in* PI
implementations, even when it is portably implemented on top of PSCI?

Regards,

Leif

>   *   I agree with the analysis in this thread. EFI_MP
>       implementations on AARCh64 need to be severely limited in the
>       general case. Platforms (upstream or downstream) can still
>       innovate and write their own code to run in these services as
>       they wish.

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> --Samer
> 
> 
> 
> From: Leif Lindholm <leif at nuviainc.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 8:28 AM
> To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud at arm.com>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore at kernel.org>; Sami Mujawar <Sami.Mujawar at arm.com>; edk2-devel-groups-io <devel at edk2.groups.io>; Rebecca Cran <rebecca at nuviainc.com>; Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com>; edk2 RFC list <rfc at edk2.groups.io>
> Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/2] Proposal to add EFI_MP_SERVICES_PROTOCOL support for AARCH64
> 
> +Samer
> 
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 3:51 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org<mailto:ardb at kernel.org>> wrote:
> > > So either we severely constrain the kind of code that we permit to run
> > > on other cores, or we enable the MMU and caches on each core as it
> > > comes out of reset, as well as do any other CPU specific
> > > initialization that we do for the primary core as well.
> >
> > The description for StartupAllAPs() has a note:
> > It is the responsibility of the consumer of the
> > EFI_MP_SERVICES_PROTOCOL.StartupAllAPs() to make sure that the nature
> > of the code that is executed on the BSP and the dispatched APs is well
> > controlled. The MP Services Protocol does not guarantee that the
> > Procedure function is MP-safe. Hence, the tasks that can be run in
> > parallel are limited to certain independent tasks and well-controlled
> > exclusive code. EFI services and protocols may not be called by APs
> > unless otherwise specified.
> >
> > So I think this is actually fine, implementation-wise. *Except* for
> > the SwitchBSP function (where we're currently bailing out anyway).
> 
> Ok, so that doesn't look as bad as I thought. But we'll have to be
> more strict than other arches: even EFI services and protocols that
> are marked as safe for execution under this MP protocol are likely to
> explode if they rely on CopyMem() or SetMem() for in/outputs that are
> not a multiple of 8 bytes in case the platform uses the
> BaseMemoryLibOptDxe flavour of this library, since it relies heavily
> on deliberately misaligned loads and stores.
> 
> I think there is no way a protocol defined in the UEFI specification could be
> safe to use by non-BSP. In PI, the only references I find to the protocol are
> in MM and SAL protocols.
> And we're not even looking at EFI_MP_SERVICES_PPI at this point.
> 
> But it might be good to hear something from ARM whether the use of this
> protocol which "must be produced on any system with more than one logical processor"
> *should* be able to rely on anything being set up for it, or whether we
> need an aforementioned helper library.
> 
> /
>     Leif
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#81752): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81752
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/86239012/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-