[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200705291932.04255.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:32:03 -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
I just noticed a bug in my testbed/benchmarking code. It's fixed, but I
decided to compare version 6 of the code against the *unsafe* decompressor
again. The results of the three runs I've put it through after changing it to
compare against the unsafe decompressor were startling. `Tiny's` compressor
is still faster - I've seen it be rated up to 3% faster. The decompressor,
OTOH, when compared to the unsafe version (which is the comparison that
started me on this binge of hacking), is more than 7% worse. About 11% slower
on the original test against a C source file, and about 6% slower for random
data. However, looking at the numbers involved, I can't see a reason to keep
the unsafe version around - the percentages look worse than they are - from 1
to 3 microseconds. (well, the compressed-cache people might want those extra
usecs - but the difference will never be noticeable anywhere outside the
kernel)
DRH
Download attachment "lzo1x-test-6a.tar.bz2" of type "application/x-tbz" (28091 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists