[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121009083910.GI4405@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:39:10 +0200
From: David Sterba <dave@...os.cz>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <markus@...rhumer.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chris.mason@...ionio.com,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...nedhand.com>,
David Sterba <dave@...os.cz>
Subject: Re: ANN: linux-kernel-lzo-2.06.20120123 - update LZO to v2.06
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:36:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I ran benchmarks on the new miniLZO and LZ4 on 64bit. LZ4 is generally slower
> than snappy/lzo in the micro benchmarks.
And the reason why you measured worse speed for LZ4 although (AFAICT)
everybody else's measurements claim the opposite is quite simple:
likely due to a copy&paste error you did not benchmark LZ4 at all:
https://github.com/andikleen/snappy-c/blob/master/glue.c#L282
274 void test_lz4(char *map, size_t size, char *fn)
275 {
276 int i;
277 int err;
278 size_t outlen = size * 2;
279 char *out = xmalloc(outlen);
280 char *buf2 = xmalloc(size);
281
282 BENCH(fastlz, "lz4", fn, NULL);
^^^^^^
283
284 free(out);
285 free(buf2);
286 }
(LZ4 is on it's track towards kernel)
david
--
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