[edk2-devel] [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg CpuCommonFeaturesLib: Remove CPU generation check
Zeng, Star
star.zeng at intel.com
Fri May 17 03:05:11 UTC 2019
Situation: All the generations (including the internal generations not listed in SDM) we saw have MSR 13Ch available when CpuInfo->CpuIdVersionInfoEcx.Bits.AESNI == 1.
Requirement: Reuse more code.
Could you help think the good method and even propose the patch for that? I am ok to any method to improve the code's reusability.
Otherwise, we can only use function level override method ina CpuSpecificFeaturesLib.
Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
"AESNI",
NULL, // Use core function
SpecificAesniSupport, // Override core function
NULL, // Use core function
CPU_FEATURE_AESNI,
CPU_FEATURE_END
);
Thanks,
Star
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ni, Ray
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 9:04 AM
> To: Zeng, Star <star.zeng at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io;
> lersek at redhat.com
> Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong at intel.com>; Kumar, Chandana C
> <chandana.c.kumar at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg CpuCommonFeaturesLib:
> Remove CPU generation check
>
> Star,
> I think the discussion is about providing the evidence to support removing
> the generation check.
> Not just the benefit of that.
>
> Thanks,
> Ray
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zeng, Star
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 10:52 PM
> > To: devel at edk2.groups.io; lersek at redhat.com
> > Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong at intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni at intel.com>;
> > Kumar, Chandana C <chandana.c.kumar at intel.com>; Zeng, Star
> > <star.zeng at intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg CpuCommonFeaturesLib:
> > Remove CPU generation check
> >
> > Laszlo,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: devel at edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io] On Behalf
> > > Of Laszlo Ersek
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 9:06 PM
> > > To: Zeng, Star <star.zeng at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io
> > > Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong at intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni at intel.com>;
> > > Kumar, Chandana C <chandana.c.kumar at intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg CpuCommonFeaturesLib:
> > > Remove CPU generation check
> > >
> > > Hi Star,
> > >
> > > On 05/16/19 12:33, Star Zeng wrote:
> > > > BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1679
> > > >
> > > > The checking to CpuInfo->CpuIdVersionInfoEcx.Bits.AESNI is enough,
> > > > the checking to CPU generation could be removed, then the code
> > > > could be reused by more platforms.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Chandana Kumar <chandana.c.kumar at intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng at intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuCommonFeaturesLib/Aesni.c | 12 +++---------
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuCommonFeaturesLib/Aesni.c
> > > > b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuCommonFeaturesLib/Aesni.c
> > > > index b79446ba3ca9..4a56eec1b267 100644
> > > > --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuCommonFeaturesLib/Aesni.c
> > > > +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuCommonFeaturesLib/Aesni.c
> > > > @@ -57,15 +57,9 @@ AesniSupport (
> > > > MSR_SANDY_BRIDGE_FEATURE_CONFIG_REGISTER
> > *MsrFeatureConfig;
> > > >
> > > > if (CpuInfo->CpuIdVersionInfoEcx.Bits.AESNI == 1) {
> > > > - if (IS_SANDY_BRIDGE_PROCESSOR (CpuInfo->DisplayFamily,
> CpuInfo-
> > > >DisplayModel) ||
> > > > - IS_SILVERMONT_PROCESSOR (CpuInfo->DisplayFamily, CpuInfo-
> > > >DisplayModel) ||
> > > > - IS_XEON_5600_PROCESSOR (CpuInfo->DisplayFamily, CpuInfo-
> > > >DisplayModel) ||
> > > > - IS_XEON_E7_PROCESSOR (CpuInfo->DisplayFamily, CpuInfo-
> > > >DisplayModel) ||
> > > > - IS_XEON_PHI_PROCESSOR (CpuInfo->DisplayFamily, CpuInfo-
> > > >DisplayModel)) {
> > > > - MsrFeatureConfig =
> > > (MSR_SANDY_BRIDGE_FEATURE_CONFIG_REGISTER *) ConfigData;
> > > > - ASSERT (MsrFeatureConfig != NULL);
> > > > - MsrFeatureConfig[ProcessorNumber].Uint64 = AsmReadMsr64
> > > (MSR_SANDY_BRIDGE_FEATURE_CONFIG);
> > > > - }
> > > > + MsrFeatureConfig =
> > > (MSR_SANDY_BRIDGE_FEATURE_CONFIG_REGISTER *) ConfigData;
> > > > + ASSERT (MsrFeatureConfig != NULL);
> > > > + MsrFeatureConfig[ProcessorNumber].Uint64 = AsmReadMsr64
> > > > + (MSR_SANDY_BRIDGE_FEATURE_CONFIG);
> > > > return TRUE;
> > > > }
> > > > return FALSE;
> > > >
> > >
> > > the patch and the bugzilla ticket claim that the AESNI bit's
> > > presence in CPUID guarantees that MSR 0x13C is available.
> >
> > That is the case we met. The purpose of this patch is to make the code
> > more usable.
> >
> > >
> > > I don't see what guarantees this. According to the latest Intel SDM
> > > Vol 4, which I just downloaded (335592-069US, January 2019),
> > > MSR_FEATURE_CONFIG is available on the following (DisplayFamily,
> > > DisplayModel) pairs:
> > >
> > > - 06_37H, 06_4AH, 06_4DH, 06_5AH, 06_5DH, 06_5CH, 06_7AH
> > > - 06_25H, 06_2CH
> > > - 06_2FH
> > > - 06_2AH, 06_2DH
> > > - 06_57H
> >
> > Yes, right.
> >
> > Let me show some examples for the generations not in the list above.
> >
> > 1. MSR 0x13C is available: our some internal generations are in this case.
> > Without the patch, code needs to use function level override method in
> > a CpuSpecificFeaturesLib.
> > Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
> > "AESNI",
> > NULL, // Use core function
> > SpecificAesniSupport, // Override core function
> > NULL, // Use core function
> > CPU_FEATURE_AESNI,
> > CPU_FEATURE_END
> > );
> > With the patch, the function level override will be not needed. The
> > benefit of this patch is here.
> >
> > 2. MSR 0x13C is not available: let's assume some other MSR will be
> > available for the case.
> > Without or with the patch, codes both need to use function level
> > override method in a CpuSpecificFeaturesLib.
> > Status = RegisterCpuFeature (
> > "AESNI",
> > NULL, // Use core function
> > SpecificAesniSupport, // Override core function
> > SpecificAesniInitialize, // Override core function
> > CPU_FEATURE_AESNI,
> > CPU_FEATURE_END
> > );
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Star
> >
> > >
> > > Which seems to indicate that at least *the approach* of the original
> > > code -- i.e. the family/model checking -- is correct. (It's possible
> > > that the family/model list has to be extended from time to time, of
> > > course.)
> > >
> > > Anyway, I don't intend to block this patch; OVMF does not use
> > > CpuCommonFeaturesLib, so this change cannot regress it. I will let
> > > other UefiCpuPkg reviewers decide about this patch.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Laszlo
> > >
> > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#40852): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/40852
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31639184/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
More information about the edk2-devel-archive
mailing list