linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels

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: <510F10C4.2080903@oberhumer.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:37:08 +0100
From:	"Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <markus@...rhumer.com>
To:	"kyungsik.lee" <kyungsik.lee@....com>
CC:	Rajesh Pawar <pawaraj@...ia.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...per.es,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
	임효준 <hyojun.im@....com>,
	정찬균 <chan.jeong@....com>,
	minchan@...nel.org,
	김남형 <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Egon Alter <egon.alter@....net>,
	CE Linux Developers List <celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org>,
	raphael.andy.lee@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels

On 2013-02-01 08:00, kyungsik.lee wrote:
> On 2013-01-30 오전 6:09, Rajesh Pawar wrote:
>>> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:50:43 +0900
>>> Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>> What's this "with enabled unaligned memory access" thing? You mean "if
>>> the arch supports CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS"? If so,
>>> that's only x86, which isn't really in the target market for this
>>> patch, yes?
>>> It's a lot of code for a 50ms boot-time improvement. Does anyone have
>>> any opinions on whether or not the benefits are worth the cost?
>> BTW, what happened to the proposed LZO update - woudn't it better to merge
>> this first?
>>
>> Also, under the hood LZ4 seems to be quite similar to LZO, so probably
>> LZO speed would also greatly benefit from unaligned access and some other
>> ARM optimisations
>>   
> I didn't test with the proposed LZO update you mentioned. Sorry, which one do
> you mean?
> I did some tests with the latest LZO in the mainline.

In fact you can easily improve LZO decompression speed on armv7 by almost 50%
by adding just a few lines for enabling unaligend access:

armv7 (Cortex-A9), Linaro gcc-4.6 -O3, Silesia test corpus, 256 kB block-size:

                   compression speed   decompression speed

  LZO-2005    :          27 MB/sec           84 MB/sec
  LZO-2012    :          44 MB/sec          117 MB/sec
  LZO-2013-UA :          47 MB/sec          167 MB/sec

Please see my other mail to LKML for details.

Cheers,
Markus

> As a result, LZO is not faster in an unaligned access enabled on ARM. Actually
> Slower.
> 
> Decompression time: 336ms(383ms, with unaligned access enabled)
> 
> You may refer to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/7/85 to know more about it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kyungsik
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Kyungsik
> 

-- 
Markus Oberhumer, <markus@...rhumer.com>, http://www.oberhumer.com/
--
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/