> > Why does memcpy performance matter? In addition to the overall > memcpy stuff scattered around C code we have an instance that is > particularly sensitive to memcpy performance. For DMA operations > when invoking double-buffering or access to portions of a buffer that > is common mapped (i.e. uncached on non-coherent DMA systems) the > impact of a non-optimized memcpy is enormous compared to the > optimized ones because the penalty is amplified by orders of > magnitude due to uncached memory access latency. > > > > That code would be using CopyMem(), no? This only serves the > compiler > generated calls, which are few since Tianocore does not allow > initialized locals.
I see and agree that should minimize the impact. I guess I'll ask the naive question. Could the BaseMemoryLib and CompilerIntrinsicsLib share the same stuff? _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
