[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1180100024.5864.54.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:33:43 +0100
From: Richard Purdie <richard@...nedhand.com>
To: Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm-cc@...top.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Andrey Panin <pazke@...pac.ru>, Bret Towe <magnade@...il.com>,
Michael-Luke Jones <mlj28@....ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 4
Hi Nitin,
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 18:27 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/25/07, Richard Purdie <richard@...nedhand.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 17:15 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > > Richard, can you please provide perf. results for this patch also?
> > > Also, can you please mail back latest version of your LZO patch? In
> > > meantime, I will try to include benchmarking support to the
> > > 'compress-test' module.
> >
> > This version is 15% slower at decompression and about equal on
> > compression.
>
> If you don't mind, can you please try patch attached now? I have now
> also rolled back that cpu_to_le16() change as Satyam suggested. I see
> no other reason for this perf. loss as I made no other change!
I tested it with no real change in the results. Since I'm doing the
tests on LE, cpu_to_le16() should a NOP anyway.
> Also, can you please verify if you are comparing your _safe_ version
> with this patch? This patch does not include unsafe version and the
> safe one is simply called lzo1x_decompress().
Yes, I am comparing with my safe version.
Cheers,
Richard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists