[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090804160043.82b256d8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:00:43 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: sam@...nborg.org, hpa@...or.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
alain@...ff.lu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] Add support for LZO-compressed kernels
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:58:18 +0200
Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> This is the first part of the lzo patch
> The lzo compressor is worse than gzip at compression, but faster at
> extraction. Here are some figures for an ARM board I'm working on:
>
> Uncompressed size: 3.24Mo
> gzip 1.61Mo 0.72s
> lzo 1.75Mo 0.48s
>
> So for a compression ratio that is still relatively close to gzip, it's
> much faster to extract, at least in that case.
Is 3.2Mb a typical kernel size for small systems? It sounds large.
0.24 seconds booting speedup sounds pretty thin. Adding a new
decompression format will introduce more configuration/build/deployment
complexities. How do we justify this?
Did anyone look into just speeding up the gzip decompressor?
> +#ifdef STATIC
What is this STATIC thing for?
--
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