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: <200705291748.10150.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2007 17:48:09 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	"Nitin Gupta" <nitingupta910@...il.com>
Cc:	"Bret Towe" <magnade@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm-cc@...top.org,
	linuxcompressed-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Richard Purdie" <richard@...nedhand.com>,
	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6

All problems I was having with the test-bed code have been solved, and the 
error I was running into was, as I suspected, in the code I used to fill the 
buffer for the random-data test.

Results of running the new benchmark (version 6 of the benchmark, version 6 
of 'tinyLZO'):
10000 run averages:
'Tiny LZO':
        Combined: 104.1529 usec
        Compression: 43.065 usec
        Decompression: 18.4648 usec
        Random Data Compression: 31.132 usec
        Random Data Decompression: 11.4911 usec
'miniLZO':
        Combined: 106.1363 usec
        Compression: 44.6988 usec
        Decompression: 18.3576 usec
        Random Data Compression: 31.5772 usec
        Random Data Decompression: 11.5027 usec
Percentages (calculated as: ((full - tiny)/full)*100):
Overall (combined totals): Tiny is 1.87 % faster
Compression: Tiny is 3.66 % faster
Decompression: Tiny is 0.58 % slower
Random Compression: Tiny is 1.41 % faster
Random Decompression: Tiny is 0.10 % faster

The results, on my system, are not consistent, except in that 'TinyLZO' is 
generally faster in the non-random data tests than miniLZO. It did, three of 
the five times I ran the test, perform (on average) about 1% worse than 
miniLZO.

In order to sidestep any issues that a difference in the input data might have 
caused, I'm going to rewrite the code so that all tests are run against the 
same data. However, in the meantime, I've attached the latest version of my 
test-code.

DRH
PS: the code is going to massively change as I work to include more data 
sources for the benchmarking, as well as tests that will try to really stress 
the stripped-down code.

Download attachment "lzo1x-test-6.tar.bz2" of type "application/x-tbz" (28100 bytes)