linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4cefeab80705282248pd595302v519b3ae6c6f41daa@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2007 11:18:29 +0530
From:	"Nitin Gupta" <nitingupta910@...il.com>
To:	"Bret Towe" <magnade@...il.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm-cc@...top.org,
	linuxcompressed-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Daniel Hazelton" <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	"Richard Purdie" <richard@...nedhand.com>,
	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6

On 5/29/07, Bret Towe <magnade@...il.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached is tester code used for testing.
> > (developed by Daniel Hazelton -- modified slightly to now use 'take 6'
> > version for 'TinyLZO')
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nitin
> >
> > On 5/28/07, Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com> wrote:
> > > (Using tester program from Daniel)
> > >
> > > Following compares this kernel port ('take 6') vs original miniLZO code:
> > >
> > > 'TinyLZO' refers to this kernel port.
> > >
> > > 10000 run averages:
> > > 'Tiny LZO':
> > >        Combined: 61.2223 usec
> > >        Compression: 41.8412 usec
> > >        Decompression: 19.3811 usec
> > > 'miniLZO':
> > >        Combined: 66.0444 usec
> > >        Compression: 46.6323 usec
> > >        Decompression: 19.4121 usec
> > >
> > > Result:
> > > Overall: TinyLZO is 7.3% faster
> > > Compressor: TinyLZO is 10.2% faster
> > > Decompressor: TinyLZO is 0.15% faster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> 10000 run averages:
> 'Tiny LZO':
>         Combined: 112.6642 usec
>         Compression: 56.3321 usec
>         Decompression: 56.3321 usec
> 'miniLZO':
>         Combined: 77.6642 usec
>         Compression: 56.3416 usec
>         Decompression: 21.3226 usec
>
> now the interesting bit I thought was the following
> root@...i:/usr/src/lzo1x-test-4# ./fulltest
> [test_lzo.c::compress (93)] run took 42 microseconds
> [test_lzo.c::decompress (127)] run took 20 microseconds
> root@...i:/usr/src/lzo1x-test-4# ./tinytest
> [test.c::compress (91)] run took 44 microseconds
> [test.c::decompress (117)] BUG: lzo1x_decompress has failed ( t == -6 )
> [test.c::main (149)] BUG: Decompression routine failure
>


Did you use x86 for above test? Maybe some problem with testing
script? What data did you use for this test?


- Nitin
-
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/