On 26.09.2009 07:16, ron minnich wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Given that ages ago my proposal to add caching for LAR entries was >> rejected (and I don't think positions have changed since then), LAR/CBFS >> walking will stay somewhat expensive. >> > > We have about 4 entries in the typical CBFS. I just don't see how the > price of walking it can be a major item. It used to be until I created > the "giant empty space" file. Now, walking a whole LAR can be done in > short order. I'm happy to time it but I bet uncached it's still far > less than one millisecond. > > We should always cache ROM and, if we are not, then, we should. > > I guess I am not sure this is a huge problem. >
It is apparently enough of a problem to be noticed by Myles. Myles, do you have any timing measurements we could use to assess the impact for the non-verbose case? I know that serial printing slows everything down to a crawl, but if the CBFS code emits no messages at all, how long does it take to walk the entire ROM (unsuccessful walk)? Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
