Hi Ilias, On Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 08:26 Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Simon > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 at 16:58, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > We have been discussing the state of EFI memory management for some > > years so I thought it might be best to send a short series showing some > > of the issues we have talked about. > > > > This one just deals with memory allocation. It provides a way to detect > > EFI 'page allocations' when U-Boot' malloc() should be used. It should > > help us to clean up this area of U-Boot. > > > > It also updates EFI to use U-Boot memory allocation for the pool. Most > > functions use that anyway and it is much more efficient. It also avoids > > allocating things 'in space' in conflict with the loaded images. > > > > This series also includes a little patch to show more information in > > the index for the EFI pages. > > > > Note that this series is independent from Sugosh's lmb series[1], > > although I believe it will point the way to simplifying some of the > > later patches in that series. > > > > Overall, some issues which should be resolved are: > > - allocation inconsistency, e.g. efi_add_protocol() uses malloc() but > > efi_dp_dup() does not (this series makes a start) > > The EFI memory allocations and mappings are described in the EFI spec. > Look at chapter 7.2 Memory Allocation Services. This patchset breaks > various aspects of the spec, since the metadata needed for the EFI > memory map is not kept from malloc. The reason efi_add_protocol() uses > calloc, is that this is memory used from our internal implementation > of the protocol linked list -- IOW how to search and identify > protocols that we add in a list and not UEFI boot or runtime services. Er, yes, I am aware of that chapter:-) Can you please be more specific about which various aspects this will break? Also please let me know if you have comments on any of the patches. Regards, Simon > Thanks > /Ilias > > > > - change efi_bl_init() to register events later, when the devices are > > actually used > > - rather than efi_set_bootdev(), provide a bootstd way to take note of > > the device images came from and allow EFI to query that when needed > > - EFI_LOADER_BOUNCE_BUFFER - can use U-Boot bounce buffers? > > > > Minor questions on my mind: > > - is unaligned access useful? Is there a performance penalty? > > - API confusion about whether something is an address or a pointer > > > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=416441 > > > > > > Simon Glass (6): > > doc: Show more information in efi index > > efi: Convert device_path allocation to use malloc() > > efi: Allow monitoring of page allocations > > efi: Avoid pool allocation in efi_get_memory_map_alloc() > > efi: Use malloc() for the EFI pool > > efi: Show the location of the bounce buffer > > > > doc/develop/uefi/index.rst | 2 +- > > include/efi_loader.h | 24 ++++ > > lib/efi_loader/efi_bootbin.c | 10 ++ > > lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c | 43 ++++--- > > lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path_to_text.c | 2 +- > > lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 148 +++++++++++------------ > > lib/efi_loader/efi_setup.c | 7 ++ > > 7 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > >
