[RFC PATCH v2 41/48] efi_memory: add an event handler to update memory map

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:39:32PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Sughosh,
> 
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 10:39, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > hi Simon,
> >
> > On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 at 20:46, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Sughosh,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 at 08:38, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are events that would be used to notify other interested modules
> > > > of any changes in available and occupied memory. This would happen
> > > > when a module allocates or reserves memory, or frees up memory. These
> > > > changes in memory map should be notified to other interested modules
> > > > so that the allocated memory does not get overwritten. Add an event
> > > > handler in the EFI memory module to update the EFI memory map
> > > > accordingly when such changes happen. As a consequence, any subsequent
> > > > memory request would honour the updated memory map and only available
> > > > memory would be allocated from.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes since V1:
> > > > * Handle the addition of memory to the LMB memory map.
> > > > * Pass the overlap_only_ram parameter to the efi_add_memory_map_pg()
> > > >   based on the type of operation.
> > > >
> > > >  lib/efi_loader/Kconfig      |  1 +
> > > >  lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is getting complicated and I don't believe it is needed.
> > >
> > > EFI should not be allocating memory 'in free space' until it starts
> > > up. For the very few (if any) cases where it does, it can do an lmb
> > > allocation.
> >
> > EFI memory module is not allocating memory at all now. This patch is
> > adding an event handler for updating the EFI memory map, whenever the
> > LMB memory map changes. All the EFI allocations are now being routed
> > through the LMB API's.
> 
> OK
> 
> >
> > >
> > > As to the lmb allocations themselves, EFI can simply call look through
> > > the lmb list and call efi_add_memory_map_pg() for each entry, when it
> > > is ready to boot. There is no need to do it earlier.
> >
> > So in this case, I believe that rather than adding code in multiple
> > places where the EFI memory module would have to get the LMB map and
> > then update it's own, I think it is easier to update the EFI memory
> > map as and when the LMB map gets updated. Else, we have a scenario
> > where the EFI memory map would have to be updated as part of the EFI
> > memory map dump function, as well as before the EFI boot. Any new code
> > that would be subsequently introduced that might have a similar
> > requirement would then be needed to keep this point in mind(to get the
> > memory map from LMB).
> 
> That doesn't hold water in my eyes. I actually like the idea of the
> EFI memory map being set up before booting. It should be done in a
> single function called from one place, just before booting. Well, I
> suppose it could be called from the memory-map-dump function too. But
> it should be pretty simple...just add some pre-defined things and then
> add the lmb records. You can even write a unit test for it.
> 
> >
> > This is not an OS file-system kind of an operation where performance
> > is critical, nor is this event(LMB memory map update) going to happen
> > very frequently. So I believe that it would be better to keep the EFI
> > memory map updated along with the LMB one.
> 
> I really don't like that idea at all. One table is enough for use by
> U-Boot. The EFI one is needed for booting. Keeping them in sync as
> U-Boot is running is not necessary, just invites bugs and makes the
> whole thing harder to test.

Doesn't that ignore the issue of EFI being re-entrant to us? Or no,
because you're suggesting we only update the EFI map before entering the
EFI loader, not strictly "booting the OS"? In which case, maybe that
does end up being both cleaner and smaller? I'm not sure.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20240715/244f456a/attachment.sig>