On 11 August 2016 at 23:50, Cohen, Eugene <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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? >
Let me look into that _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
