Re: [chromium-dev] Embedding chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: I have considered the possibility of moving the resources on Windows out of chrome.dll. I made a change a few weeks back that moved theme resources into chrome.dll and there was no noticeable change on the bots. I imagine moving them back out (along with chrome resources) would not slow down startup on the bots either. The benefit to doing this would be that small changes to the resources file wouldn't cause a relink, which is exceptionally painful on Windows. On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Satoru Takabayashi sato...@chromium.orgwrote: Evan, Thank you for the detailed feedback. It looks there won't be a much difference so I'll just forget about the idea. Thanks, Satoru On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Satoru Takabayashi sato...@chromium.org wrote: The chrome binary for Linux seems to load resource bundles from a file named chrome.pak, while the resource booundles are embedded in the chrome DLL in other platforms (correct me if I'm wrong). This makes me wonder if it's a good idea to embed chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux. This would save open+mmap cost (probably negligible though), and would make the package a bit simpler. I guess it can be done with objcopy, without too much work. Any thoughts? I thought about this for a while and I'm not sure there is enough of a difference either way to make it matter. It seems that having it within the executable should be nearly identical in terms of startup cost and memory usage. I guess the code might be slightly less complicated, but we already pay complexity anyway for locating the locale data, which remains separate. If I have any preference, I would prefer it either all one way (all static data embedded within the executable) or the other (all static data external to the executable). Right now we're somewhere in the middle (since ICU data is in the executable) and your proposed change also leaves us in the middle (since it would leave locale data out of the executable). There's maybe one other benefit to consider: the simpler the executable, the faster the iterative compile/link cycle will be. But again I wonder if the difference would be enough to measure, since the resources data is only 1.4mb. (The ICU data is something like 8mb, so that ought to cost more.) -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
[chromium-dev] Embedding chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux?
The chrome binary for Linux seems to load resource bundles from a file named chrome.pak, while the resource booundles are embedded in the chrome DLL in other platforms (correct me if I'm wrong). This makes me wonder if it's a good idea to embed chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux. This would save open+mmap cost (probably negligible though), and would make the package a bit simpler. I guess it can be done with objcopy, without too much work. Any thoughts? Satoru -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
Re: [chromium-dev] Embedding chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux?
[From the right address this time] There is a pak file for each language, so you'd have in include all language pak files in the binary, and only one would be used at any given time, so there would be some overhead as far a memory, etc. TVL On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Satoru Takabayashi sato...@chromium.orgwrote: The chrome binary for Linux seems to load resource bundles from a file named chrome.pak, while the resource booundles are embedded in the chrome DLL in other platforms (correct me if I'm wrong). This makes me wonder if it's a good idea to embed chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux. This would save open+mmap cost (probably negligible though), and would make the package a bit simpler. I guess it can be done with objcopy, without too much work. Any thoughts? Satoru -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
Re: [chromium-dev] Embedding chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux?
There are not embedded even on Windows (see 52 dlls under Google\Chrome\Application\version\Locales folder). On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Satoru Takabayashi sato...@chromium.orgwrote: The chrome binary for Linux seems to load resource bundles from a file named chrome.pak, while the resource booundles are embedded in the chrome DLL in other platforms (correct me if I'm wrong). This makes me wonder if it's a good idea to embed chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux. This would save open+mmap cost (probably negligible though), and would make the package a bit simpler. I guess it can be done with objcopy, without too much work. Any thoughts? Satoru -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
Re: [chromium-dev] Embedding chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux?
Thank you for the feedback. I was thinking about embedding only chrome.pak, not language pak files, just like Windows has a DLL for each language. Satoru On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Rahul Kuchhal kuch...@chromium.org wrote: There are not embedded even on Windows (see 52 dlls under Google\Chrome\Application\version\Locales folder). On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Satoru Takabayashi sato...@chromium.orgwrote: The chrome binary for Linux seems to load resource bundles from a file named chrome.pak, while the resource booundles are embedded in the chrome DLL in other platforms (correct me if I'm wrong). This makes me wonder if it's a good idea to embed chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux. This would save open+mmap cost (probably negligible though), and would make the package a bit simpler. I guess it can be done with objcopy, without too much work. Any thoughts? Satoru -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
Re: [chromium-dev] Embedding chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Satoru Takabayashi sato...@chromium.org wrote: The chrome binary for Linux seems to load resource bundles from a file named chrome.pak, while the resource booundles are embedded in the chrome DLL in other platforms (correct me if I'm wrong). This makes me wonder if it's a good idea to embed chrome.pak in the chrome binary for Linux. This would save open+mmap cost (probably negligible though), and would make the package a bit simpler. I guess it can be done with objcopy, without too much work. Any thoughts? I thought about this for a while and I'm not sure there is enough of a difference either way to make it matter. It seems that having it within the executable should be nearly identical in terms of startup cost and memory usage. I guess the code might be slightly less complicated, but we already pay complexity anyway for locating the locale data, which remains separate. If I have any preference, I would prefer it either all one way (all static data embedded within the executable) or the other (all static data external to the executable). Right now we're somewhere in the middle (since ICU data is in the executable) and your proposed change also leaves us in the middle (since it would leave locale data out of the executable). There's maybe one other benefit to consider: the simpler the executable, the faster the iterative compile/link cycle will be. But again I wonder if the difference would be enough to measure, since the resources data is only 1.4mb. (The ICU data is something like 8mb, so that ought to cost more.) -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
