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...@intel.com>; ku...@outlook.com > Cc: Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.w...@intel.com>; > gaoliming <gaolim...@byosoft.com.cn>; Yao, > Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>; Bret Barkelew <bret.barke...@microsoft.com>; > 'Sean Brogan' <sean.bro...@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 > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#78774): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/78774 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/84682596/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
