Re: [PATCH 3/6] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Change performance code

["Wu, Hao A" <hao.a.wu@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gao, Zhichao
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 3:29 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Bret Barkelew; Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; Ni, Ray; Zeng, Star; Gao, Liming
> Subject: [PATCH 3/6] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Change
> performance code
> 
> From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>
> 
> REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1888
> 
> Use PERF_INMODULE_BEGIN and PERF_INMODULE_END to replace
> PERF_START_EX,
> PERF_CODE and PERF_END_EX.


Hello Dandan & Liming,

May I know the reason for 'PERF_START_EX' & 'PERF_END_EX' macros are not
being replaced in commit:

Revision: 67e9ab84ef042bd59c4297fdad7f6aece6b7bbca
MdeModulePkg: Use new added Perf macros

Is there a special reason for this?
('OptionNumber' as the identifier?)


> Use PERF_CROSSMODULE_END and PERF_CROSSMODULE_BEGIN to get the
> info
> of one boot image's performance.


Hello Zhichao,

May I know what kind of test has been done for this patch?
Also, some inline comments below:


> 
> Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
> Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
> Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhichao Gao <zhichao.gao@intel.com>
> ---
>  MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c
> b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c
> index 952033fc82..af1024cacd 100644
> --- a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c
> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c
> @@ -1812,7 +1812,7 @@ EfiBootManagerBoot (
>      BmRepairAllControllers (0);
>    }
> 
> -  PERF_START_EX (gImageHandle, "BdsAttempt", NULL, 0, (UINT32)
> OptionNumber);
> +  PERF_INMODULE_BEGIN ("BdsAttempt");
> 
>    //
>    // 5. Adjust the different type memory page number just before booting
> @@ -1932,9 +1932,9 @@ EfiBootManagerBoot (
>    //
>    // Write boot to OS performance data for UEFI boot
>    //
> -  PERF_CODE (
> -    BmEndOfBdsPerfCode (NULL, NULL);
> -  );
> +  PERF_INMODULE_END ("BdsAttempt");


I think the patch missed to replace the below 'PERF_END_EX' macro:

  //
  if ((DevicePathType (BootOption->FilePath) == BBS_DEVICE_PATH) && (DevicePathSubType (BootOption->FilePath) == BBS_BBS_DP)) {
    ...

    PERF_END_EX (gImageHandle, "BdsAttempt", NULL, 0, (UINT32) OptionNumber);
    ^^^^^^^^^^^
    return;
  }


> +  PERF_CROSSMODULE_END ("BDS");
> +  PERF_CROSSMODULE_BEGIN ("BDS");


Could you help to introduce the purpose for the above
'PERF_CROSSMODULE_BEGIN' in more detail?


> 
>    REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, PcdGet32
> (PcdProgressCodeOsLoaderStart));
> 
> @@ -1947,7 +1947,6 @@ EfiBootManagerBoot (
>      //
>      BmReportLoadFailure (EFI_SW_DXE_BS_EC_BOOT_OPTION_FAILED,
> Status);
>    }
> -  PERF_END_EX (gImageHandle, "BdsAttempt", NULL, 0, (UINT32)
> OptionNumber);


The patch excludes the time consumed by StartImage() from performance data
for the "BdsAttempt" token.

If the image starts successfully, there will not be an matching PERF_END
macro for the origin code.

Ray, do you think it is a reasonable change here?

Best Regards,
Hao Wu


> 
>    //
>    // Destroy the RAM disk
> --
> 2.21.0.windows.1