[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4cefeab80705280208v2cfdd420u82f1d3b157abb6e0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:38:54 +0530
From: "Nitin Gupta" <nitingupta910@...il.com>
To: "Daniel Hazelton" <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
"Richard Purdie" <richard@...nedhand.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm-cc@...top.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"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
On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> On Monday 28 May 2007 04:37:04 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > As you mentioned in your mail, you are using lzo1x_1_11_compress()
> > which is slower than what I ported (which is same as what is exported
> > by miniLZO). So, can you please test with the version ported - this
> > is found in lzo/src/lzo1x_1.c (or in minilzo.c).
> > Also, can you please use 'take 5' for your next testing?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin
>
> Will do. (that's DBITS=15, correct?)
>
That's D_BITS=14
> However, when I averaged it 100 times, lzo1x_1_11_compress() showed better
> speed than your implementation - about 1.5% faster.
I don't yet have any explanation for this.
> The *unsafe*
> decompressor, however, only shows about a 1.2% speed advantage over the safe
> decompressor.
>
> DRH
>
-
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