From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.134.136.20; helo=mga02.intel.com; envelope-from=bob.c.feng@intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF0D211575FE for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:49:53 -0800 (PST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Dec 2018 00:49:53 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,341,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="117659418" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2018 00:49:52 -0800 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.69) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:49:47 -0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.201]) by SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.59]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:48:20 +0800 From: "Feng, Bob C" To: Leif Lindholm CC: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "Carsey, Jaben" , "Gao, Liming" Thread-Topic: [edk2] [Patch] BaseTools: Optimize string concatenation Thread-Index: AQHUd0w33kqZL81XV0agjUNN2Boo7KVFkjQAgAEi7jCAABp5AIAC7bJwgCXdNxCAB9xNAIAAkHJg//+N0ACAAdE6cA== Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:48:19 +0000 Message-ID: <08650203BA1BD64D8AD9B6D5D74A85D16002ADCC@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <20181108101625.41364-1-bob.c.feng@intel.com> <20181108165238.vhdbx2mc42kefvag@bivouac.eciton.net> <08650203BA1BD64D8AD9B6D5D74A85D15FFFBED5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20181109114840.txogb6tz5u23o4ng@bivouac.eciton.net> <08650203BA1BD64D8AD9B6D5D74A85D15FFFCFF1@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <08650203BA1BD64D8AD9B6D5D74A85D1600264F9@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20181210104736.dbvh5czprog6pe3x@bivouac.eciton.net> <08650203BA1BD64D8AD9B6D5D74A85D16002A384@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20181210123554.ti56dhmlnswgkjqj@bivouac.eciton.net> In-Reply-To: <20181210123554.ti56dhmlnswgkjqj@bivouac.eciton.net> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Patch] BaseTools: Optimize string concatenation X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:49:54 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Leif, I understand your concern. =20 I collected another performance data set based on open source MinKabylake p= latform and updated the BZ https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id= =3D1288. The data looks better than Ovmf. It enabled multiple SKU. Before I sent those patch, I did verify them on intel real platforms. It im= proves the build performance. But it's not convenient to share those data. Thanks, Bob -----Original Message----- From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]=20 Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 8:36 PM To: Feng, Bob C Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Carsey, Jaben ; Gao, L= iming Subject: Re: [edk2] [Patch] BaseTools: Optimize string concatenation On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:09:23PM +0000, Feng, Bob C wrote: > For the "customized deepcopy" and "cache for uni file parser" data,=20 > you can see the AutoGen is not slower. The whole Build Duration is=20 > longer because Make Duration is longer while Make Duration time=20 > depends on the external make, compiler and linker. So it's not the=20 > patch make the build slow down. >=20 > Yes, it's not faster either. I think that because the Ovmf platform=20 > is relatively simple. From the build tool source code point of view,=20 > the customized deepcopy will take effect if the platform enabled=20 > multiple SKU or there are many expressions in metadata file to be=20 > evaluated. And the "cache for uni file parser" needs there are many=20 > uni files. The Ovmf platform looks not a good platform to demo the=20 > effect of this patch. But surely we should not introduce patches said to improve performance when= the only data we have available shows that they slow things down? If the performance data is not representative, then it is worthless. Don't get me wrong - if you say "and for this secret platform I can't share= with you, it improves build performance by X", then I may be OK with a min= or slowdown on the platforms I do have available to test, if X is not minor= . But if the improvement is only theoretical, and we have no evidence that it= helps real platforms, it should not be committed. Regards, Leif